I       JUL  7 

Moses  and  the  Prophets: 

THE 

OLD    TESTAMENT  IN  THE  JEWISH  CHURCH, 
By  prof.  W.  ROBERTSON  SMITH; 

THE  PROPHETS  AND  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL, 
By  dr.   a.   KUENEN; 

AND 

THE    PROPHETS    OE   ISRAEL, 
By  W.  ROBERTSON  SMITH,  LL.D. 

REVIEWED    BY 

WILLIAM    HENRY    GREEN,    D.D., 

PROFESSOR   IN   PRINCETON   THEOLOGICAL   SEMIN.\RY. 


NEW  YORK: 
HURST    vt    COIMPANY,    PUBLISHERS, 
122    Nassau   Street. 
1891. 


Copyright,  1882, 
By  Robert  Carter  and  Brothers. 


ARGYLE  PRESS, 

Frintinq  and  Bookeinocng, 

265  4  267   CHERRr  er. ,  n.  i 


PREFACE, 


This  volume  does  not  pretend  to  discuss  all  ques- 
tions pertaining  to  the  Books  of  Moses  and  the 
Prophets.  It  is  simply  a  reprint,  with  additions,  of 
articles  in  review  of  the  v^orks  named  in  the  title, 
which  appeared  in  the  "  Presbyterian  Review,"  for 
October,  1881,  and  for  January,  1882,  and  in  the 
"Princeton  Review,"  for  July,  1878.  The  last  is 
published  as  originally  written,  a  few  pages  hav- 
ing been  restored  which  were  dropped  to  bring  it 
within  smaller  compass.  The  Preliminary  Remarks 
were  delivered  in  September,  188 1,  as  the  opening 
lecture  of  the  session  in  Princeton  Theological  Sem- 
inary. A  few  paragraphs  have  been  added  to  the 
article  entitled  "  Professor  Robertson  Smith  on  the 
Pentateuch,"  for  the  sake  of  greater  fulness  or  clear- 
ness in  the  argument.  Thus  attention  is  drawn  to 
the  fact  that  the  alleged  diversity  of  writers  in  the 
Pentateuch,  if  it  could  be  proved,  would  not  affect 
its  antiquity  or  authority  (p.  46)  ;  that  the  Levitical 
Law  must  have  been  written  as  well  as  enacted  in 
the    "Wilderness    (p.  61);     that    Moses    could    have 


2  PREFACE. 

spoken  of  his  own  meekness  with  no  disparage- 
ment to  his  modesty  (p.  6i,  note)\  that  the  variant 
phraseology  of  Leviticus  and  of  Deuteronomy,  in  re- 
lation to  the  priests,  involves  no  diversity  of  author- 
ship or  of  age  (  p.  80,  note  2)  ;  and  that  there  is  no 
discrepancy,  as  is  alleged,  between  Deuteronomy  and 
the  Levitical  Law  in  relation  to  the  Passover  (p.  118, 
note).  A  separate  chapter  has  also  been  devoted  to 
the  Worship  in  High  Places,  about  which  the  critics 
hold  the  most  extravagant  opinions,  and  upon  which 
they  found  their  principal  arguments  against  the  an- 
tiquity of  the  Laws  of  the  Pentateuch. 

The  review  of  Dr.  Robertson  Smith's  recent  Lec- 
tures on  the  Prophets  of  Israel  is  here  published  for 
the  first  time. 

If  this  little  book  shall  serve  in  any  measure  to 
confirm  the  faith  or  to  relieve  the  perplexities  of  any 
who  have  been  disturbed  by  recent  critical  specula- 
tions, the  author's  highest  wishes  on  its  behalf  will 
be  realized.  With  whatever  learned  ingenuity  and 
skill  the  unfounded  speculations  may  be  contrived, 
and  with  whatever  boastful  confidence  they  may  be 
put  forward,  we  may  rest  assured  that  the  estab- 
lished belief  of  ages  will  not  be  unsettled,  nor  the 
firm  foundations  of  God's  Word  be  overturned. 

Princeton,  N.  J.,  August  22d,  1882. 


CONTENTS, 


PREFACE rage  i 

I.   PRELIMINARY  REMARKS. 

Pages  9-32. 

Novel  aspects  of  the  present  agitation,  9;  the  first  impulse  was  given 
by  English  deism,  13;  the  method  of  German  rationalists,  13;  of 
French  infidels,  15;  of  the  unbelieving  higher  criticism,  16;  previ- 
ously existing  barriers  are  now  removed,  23  ;  the  peril  hence  result- 
ing, 27  ;  the  duty  thus  made  incumbent,  28. 


II.  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  JEWISH  CHURCH. 

Pages  33-43. 

The  volume  characterized  in  general,  33  ;  the  text  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, 34;  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  39;  the  meaning  of  the 
name  Jehovah,  42. 


III.   PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH  ON  THE  PENTATEUCH. 

Pages  44-134- 

The  view  defended  by  Professor  S.,  44 ;  history  of  this  hypothesis, 
44 ;  its  first  reception,  48 ;  passages  in  the  Pentateuch  affirming 
Moses'  authorship,  49  ;  three  groups  of  laws,  50 ;  extent  of  the  claim 
of  authorship,  51 ;  this  claim  cannot  be  false,  54  ;  nor  a  legal  fiction, 
56  and  note  ;  it  is  confirmed  by  the  language  and  tenor  of  the  laws, 
57,  which  shows  them  to  have  been  both  enacted  and  written  in  the 
Wilderness,  61 ;  Moses'  use  of  the  third  person,  61  ;  and  self-lauda- 


CONTENTS. 

tion,  note ;  no  analogous  example  of  legal  fiction  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment,  62  ;  laws  of  Deuteronomy  incompatible  with  the  reign  of 
Josiah,  63  ;  direction  respecting  the  future  king,  note  ;  the  Levitical 
Law  not  post-exilic,  65 ;  it  is  alleged  that  the  Law  cannot  all  have 
come  from  Moses,  but  must  be  a  development,  67  ;  but  Israel  at  the 
Exodus  not  uncivilized  nomads,  68  ;  little  change  required  in  their 
laws,  69  ;  necessary  changes  not  prevented  by  the  Mosaic  Law,  69  ; 
the  different  codes  are  alleged  to  represent  distinct  stages  in  the  life 
of  the  people,  71;  fallacy  in  the  method  of  the  critics,  72;  no 
discrepancy  in  relation  to  the  unity  of  the  Sanctuary,  ']'^ ;  the 
cities  of  refuge,  76  note ;  nor  the  priesthood,  76 ;  Deuteronomy 
refers  to  pre-existing  laws,  and  assumes  their  existence,  ']i  ;  distin- 
guishes between  priests  and  Levites,  78  ;  its  peculiar  phraseology 
involves  no  discrepancy,  80,  is  found  in  books  which  recognize  this 
distinction,  note  i,  and  is  readily  accounted  for,  note  2  ;  no  discrep- 
ancy in  relation  to  the  provision  for  the  priesthood,  82  note,  83 ; 
other  alleged  discrepancies,  84  note;  traces  of  the  Mosaic  Law 
in  the  subsequent  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  85 ;  Joshua  and 
Chronicles  arbitrarily  excluded,  86;  early  portion  of  the  period 
of  the  Judges,  87 ;  later  portion  of  the  same  period,  90;  the  car- 
riage of  the  Ark,  91  note  2  ;  extraordinary  sacrifices,  94;  infrequent 
mention  of  the  Sanctuary,  97  ;  God's  help  not  limited  to  His  ordi- 
nary methods,  98;  regularity  of  ritual  subordinated  to  spiritual  obe- 
dience, 99,  in  the  Mosaic  history,  100,  as  in  that  of  the  Judges, 
loi ;  Samuel's  sacrifices,  102 ;  David's  alleged  infractions  of  the 
Mosaic  Law,  105  note ;  the  worship  in  high  places,  106;  the  Law  of 
Moses  in  the  Books  of  Kings,  107;  the  Davidic  Psalms,  109;  the 
dilemma  presented  by  Ps.  xl.,  no;  Hosea  affirms  the  apostasy  of 
Israel  from  a  purer  worship,  113,  and  the  existence  of  a  written  law, 
114  and  note ;  both  he  and  Amos  speak  of  an  elaborate  ritual,  115, 
and  make  numerous  and  even  verbal  allusions  to  the  laws  of  the 
Pentateuch,  116  note;  the  alleged  depreciation  of  sacrifice  by  the 
Prophets,  117  ;  the  Passover  in  Deuteronomy  and  the  Levitical  code, 
118  note ;  the  other  Prophets,  119;  Elijah,  119  note  i  ;  Isaiah,  119; 
the  "pillar  "  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  121 ;  Ezekiel  claimed  on  behalf 
of  the  new  hypothesis,  122;  general  opposing  considerations,  123; 
the  degradation  of  the  Levites,  127  ;  uncircumcised  foreigners  in 
the  Sanctuary,  127  note;  priests  and  Levites  distinguished  in  the 
previous  history,  128,  though  not  in  Malachi,  128  note;  Ezekiel  an 
advance  upon  the  Law,  not  vice  versa,  129;  provision  for  stated  sac- 
rifices, 131  ;  purgation  of  the  altar,  131  ;  Day  of  Atonement,  133. 


CONTENTS. 


IV.   THE  WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES. 

Pages  137-169. 

One  Sanctuary  prior  to  Samuel  and  the  laws  of  Moses  observed,  137  ; 
significance  of  the  loss  of  the  Ark  and  the  slaughter  of  the  priests, 
139;  return  and  subsequent  privacy  of  the  Ark,  141 ;  the  victory  at 
Eben-ezer,  143;  plan  of  the  Books  of  Samuel,  143  note;  hopeful 
symptoms  destroyed  by  the  rejection  of  God  in  asking  for  a  king, 
144;  Saul  disobedient  and  finally  abandoned,  147;  David's  res- 
toration of  the  Ark,  148  ;  considering  their  estimate  of  the  ark,  Is- 
rael's conduct,  149,  and  that  of  Samuel,  150,  demand  an  explanation 
which  is  equally  consistent  with  their  knowledge  of  the  whole 
Mosaic  Law,  153  ;  why  the  Ark  was  not  restored  to  the  Tabernacle  of 
Moses,  153;  High  Places  are  nowhere  sanctioned  after  Solomon  in 
the  Books  of  Kings,  155,  in  the  Psalms  or  Prophets,  156;  Hosea  and 
Amos,  157;  alleged  local  sanctuaries,  159,  shown  not  to  have  been 
such ;  no  known  facts  of  Israel's  worship  conflict  with  the  Mosaic 
origin  ot  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch,  167  ;  the  Books  of  Chronicles, 
169. 

V.   KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS  AND  PROPHECY  IN 

ISRAEL. 
Pages  173-251- 
Attitude  of  Dr.  Kuenen,  173;  premature  anticipations  of  Mr.  Muir, 
175,  and  of  Dr.  Kuenen,  177  ;  naturalistic  view  of  prophecy  not  his- 
torico-critical  or  organic,  178  ;  classification  of  predictions,  181  ; 
genuineness  and  date  of  the  prophecies,  182  ;  three  groups  of  alleged 
unfulfilled  prophecies,  184  ;  cities  of  the  Philistines,  184  ;  Tyre,  188  ; 
Damascus,  197;  Ammon  and  Moab,  197  ;  Edom,  198;  Egypt,  200; 
Assyria,  213;  objection  first,  from  the  slow  accomplishment  of 
prophecy,  and  its  successive  stages,  216  ;  objection  second,  the  aveng- 
ing of  wrongs  done  to  Israel  should  precede  the  loss  of  Israel's 
national  existence,  219;  Babylon,  223;  the  Book  of  Daniel,  224; 
judgments  upon  Israel,  230 ;  the  restoration  of  Israel,  234 ;  the 
Messiah,  236 ;  prophecies  respecting  Israel  fulfilled  in  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  240 ;  modes  of  evading  those  prophecies  whose  fulfil- 
ment is  confessed,  247  ;  prophecies  in  the  historical  books,  248  ;  the 
authority  of  the  New  Testament,  250;  incredible  assumptions 
required  by  the  naturalistic  hypothesis,  251. 


COXTEA'TS. 


VI.    DR.  W.  ROBFRTSON   SMITH   ON   THE   PROPHETS 
OF   ISRAEL. 

Pages  255-353. 

The  disappointing  character  of  these  Lectures,  255  ;  divine  and  human 
elements  in  Scripture,  257  ;  the  Lecturer's  views  of  revelation,  and 
of  the  inspiration  of  the  Prophets,  260;  alleged  indifference  of 
Elijah  to  the  golden  calves,  263 ;  this  worship  not  derived  from  the 
time  of  the  Judges,  264  note ;  denounced  by  preceding  Prophets, 
265 ;  Elijah's  attitude,  as  conceived  by  the  author  of  Kings,  266 ; 
his  opposition  to  Baal,  267  ;  its  political  bearings,  268 ;  his  silence 
no  sanction,  269 ;  no  positive  approval  of  the  calves,  270  ;  he  adores 
the  God  of  the  Patriarchs,  270 ;  maintains  the  exclusive  godhead 
of  Jehovah,  271  ;  links  Baal  and  the  calves,  271 ;  predicts  a  penalty 
to  be  inflicted  on  the  worshippers  of  the  calves,  272 ;  his  visit  to 
Horeb,  273;  Dr.  W.  R.  Smith's  view  of  the  God  of  Moses,  274, 
overlooks  the  Ten  Commandments,  277,  which  gave  sacredness  to 
Sinai,  278,  and  were  contained  in  the  Ark,  2S0  ;  Wellhausen's  ob- 
jections to  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  Decalogue,  281,  from  (i)  Ex. 
xxxiv.,  282  ;  his  critical  analysis  of  Ex.  xix.-xxxiv.,  2S3  Jtofe  ;  (2)  im- 
age-worship, :288;  Kuenen  on  the  Second  Commandment,  288,  Dill- 
mann,  291,  Dr.  W.  R.  Smith,  292,  Amos  and  the  calves,  293,  Elisha, 
295;  (3)  Israel's  religion  originally  national,  not  moral,  answered 
by  Dr.  W.  R.  Smith,  296;  (4)  Monotheism  could  not  be  the  basis  of 
a  national  religion,  298;  the  antiquity  of  the  Ten  Commandments, 
298  ;  inference  respecting  Elijah,  299;  other  deductions,  300;  alleged 
separate  legal  standard  of  different  epochs,  301  ;  time  of  the  Judges 
and  Samuel,  302 ;  Deuteronomy  and  Leviticus  not  unknown  to  the 
narratives  of  Elijah  and  Elisha,  303 ;  nor  Levitical  Law  to  the  rest 
of  Kings,  306;  law  of  Ex.  xx.  24,  310;  Mosaic  legislation  not 
uninfluential,  313 ;  nor  without  recognition  in  the  Northern  King- 
dom, 315;  argument  from  Deut.  xxxiii.  and  Josh,  xxiv.,  316;  ac- 
cording to  Rosea  and  Amos,  the  Law  of  Jehovah  valid  in  both 
kingdoms,  317,  while  dispensed  by  priests  and  prophets,  318, 
existed  in  a  permanent  form  independent  of  their  occasional  ut- 
terance of  it,  and  is  traced  back  to  the  Exodus,  320  ;  it  enjoined 
duties  to  men,  321,  and  to  God,  323;  prescribed  one  Sanctuary, 
324 ;  and,  so  far  as  appears,  embraced  the  whole  of  Deuteronomy, 
331,  and  the   Levitical   Law,    332;   it  was  a  written  law,   338;   by 


whom  written,  3^1 ;  the  traditional  view,  344;  treatment  of  individ- 
ual Prophets,  346 ;  prophetic  foresight  of  Amos  and  Hosea,  347  ; 
alleged  conflict  of  Ilosea  and  Elisha,  348 ;  Isaiah  and  the  Prophets 
of  Israel,  350  ;  accuracy  of  Isaiah's  predictions,  351  ;  prophecies 
emptied  of  their  meaning,  or  eliminated  by  criticism,  352. 


Page 
Index  of  Scripture  Texts 355 

Addendum  to  page  149 170 


MOSES  AND  THE   PROPHETS. 


PRELIMINARY  REMARKS. 

A  LL  the  signs  of  the  times  indicate  that  the  Ameri- 
"^  ^  can  Church,  and,  in  fact,  the  whole  of  Eng- 
lish-speaking Christendom,  is  upon  the  eve  of  an 
agitation  upon  the  vital  and  fundamental  question  of 
the  inspiration  and  infallibility  of  the  Bible,  such  as  it 
has  never  known  before.  The  divinity  and  authority 
of  the  Scriptures  have  heretofore  been  defended 
against  the  outside  world  of  unbelievers,  against  pa- 
gans, infidels,  and  sceptics ;  but  the  question  is  now 
raised,  and  the  supreme  authority  of  the  Scriptures 
contested,  within  the  Church  itself.  In  the  contro- 
versies which  have  agitated  the  churches  of  Great 
Britain  and  of  this  country  heretofore,  the  infallible 
authority  of  Scripture  has  been  admitted  as  the  ulti- 
mate test  of  doctrine  by  all  contending  parties.  All 
made  their  appeal  to  this  standard.  The  settlement  of 
every  question  depended  upon'  its  interpretation,  or 
upon  inferences  fairly  deduciblc  from  it.  But  now 
the  standard  is  itself  brought  into  question.  Utter- 
ances which  fill  the  air  on  every  side,  and  are  borne 
to  us  from  every  quarter,  —  from  professors'  chairs, 


lO  PRELIMINARY  REMARKS. 

from  pulpits,  from  the  religious  press,  not  to  speak 
of  what  is  incidentally  woven  into  general  literature 
and  promiscuous  conversation, — show  abundantly 
that  the  burning  question  of  the  age  is  not.  What 
does  the  Bible  teach?  It  is  one  yet  more  radical 
and  fundamental :  What  is  the  Bible  ?  In  what  sense 
is  it  the  Word  of  God  ?  Is  it  a  revelation  from  Him, 
and  divinely  authoritative ;  or  is  it  to  be  left  to  the 
interpreter  to  say  what  in  it  is  from  God  and  worthy 
of  our  faith,  and  what  is  the  fallible  human  element 
that  may  be  rejected?  This  question  is  approached 
from  all  sides,  and  the  most  diverse  and  conflicting 
answers  ha\'e  been  given. 

It  is  not  a  new  thing  for  the  Church  to  have  con- 
tests without  and  within.  Our  Lord  himself  said : 
*'  I  came  not  to  send  peace  on  earth,  but  a  sword." 
The  intrusion  of  a  new  principle  leads,  of  necessity,  to 
antagonisms,  and  the  strife  is  not  always  nor  wholly 
an  unmixed  evil.  It  is  through  struggle  and  contest 
that  the  truth  has  won  its  way,  and  that  godliness  is 
purified  and  strengthened.  Nothing  is  more  fatal  to 
true  progress  than  stagnation  and  quiet  indifference. 
It  is  something  to  have  attention  roused  and  interest 
excited,  and  important  subjects  narrowly  inspected 
from  different  sides.  Discussion  results  in  clearer 
apprehensions,  juster  views,  and  a  more  thorough 
appreciation  of  all  the  elements  entering  into  the 
decision  of  vexed  questions  than  could  otherwise  be 
attained. 

According  to  the  sacred  record,  one  providential 
reason  why  the  Canaanites  were  not  at  once  destro}'ed 


PRELIMINARY  REMARKS.  I  I 

was  to  teach  Israel  war.  By  the  conflicts  which 
they  were  obHged  to  maintain  from  generation  to 
generation,  Israel  was  prevented  from  falling  into 
the  supineness,  effeminacy,  and  weakness  resulting 
from  too  great  ease  and  tranquillity.  The  need  of 
vigilance,  of  self-defence  and  daring  deeds,  compelled 
them  to  develop  manly  and  heroic  qualities.  Our 
Saviour  said  to  His  disciples:  "When  ye  hear  of  wars 
and  rumors  of  wars,  be  ye  not  troubled ;  for  such 
things  must  needs  be."  The  outward  oppressions  to 
which  the  Church  has  been  subjected,  and  her  inward 
dissensions  and  conflicts,  disastrous  as  these  some- 
times appear  upon  the  surface,  have  nevertheless  inva- 
riably been  overruled  for  good.  It  is  in  consequence 
of  the  vigor  with  which  she  has  been  assailed  on  every 
side  that  the  defences  of  Zion  have  been  made  so 
strong.  The  skilful  and  ingenious  advocacy  of  erro- 
neous views  has  forced  the  friends  of  truth  to  clearer 
thinking,  to  more  accurate  definitions  and  more  cor- 
rect statements  of  the  doctrines  of  religion.  The 
adversary  who  uncovers  a  weak  point  in  the  reason- 
ings or  in  the  formulated  statements  of  orthodox  men, 
really  renders  them  a  valuable  service  by  directing 
attention  to  what  is  fault}'  in  position  or  construction, 
and  compelling  its  correction. 

Truth  is  many-sided  and  large,  and  it  is  by  no 
means  easy  to  frame  exhaustive  statements  which 
shall  be  precisely  coincident  with  the  reality  at  every 
point, — which  shall  embrace  all  the  facts,  and  nothing 
but  what  is  fact.  It  is  only  by  a  series  of  gradual 
approximations  that  absolutely  correct  solutions  are 


I  2  PRELIMINAR  V  REMARKS. 

found  of  complicated  questions.  And  so  long  as  any 
element  of  truth  has  been  overlooked,  or  has  not  been 
assigned  its  due  place  in  the  system,  so  long  will  un- 
guarded points  be  left  open  to  attack,  which  an  adver- 
sary will  be  sure  to  find  out. 

This  has  been  the  function  of  heresies  and  religious 
controversies  from  the  beginning  until  now.  The 
Church  has  come  out  of  each  great  conflict  with  a 
more  clearly  defined  creed,  and  a  better  apprehension 
of  the  truth  that  has  been  brought  into  question; 
and  this  has  thenceforth  been  a  substantial  acquisi- 
tion. The  creed  of  evangelical  Christendom  of  the 
present  day  is  made  up  of  articles  which  have  been 
brought  to  their  present  accuracy  and  clearness  by 
just  this  process.  From  every  period  of  Egyptian 
oppression  the  Church  comes  forth  laden  with  rich 
substance.  The  weapons  that  have  been  employed 
against  her  are  converted  to  her  use ;  and  the  intel- 
lectual wealth  and  resources,  developed  by  her  ad- 
versaries, become  her  own  legitimate  inheritance. 

The  special  aspect  of  the  conflict,  to  which  we  wish 
to  direct  attention  as  now  imminent,  is  the  application 
of  historical  criticism  to  the  Bible  by  Christian  hands, 
and,  it  may  be  added,  by  professedly  orthodox  Pres- 
byterians claiming  adherence  to  the  Westminster 
standards,  —  the  application  of  criticism  to  the  Bible 
in  a  manner  to  overthrow  old  established  view^s  of 
the  authorship  of  the  books  of  Scripture,  of  the 
meaning  and  value  of  the  Bible,  of  the  course  and 
character  of  God's  revelation  to  men. 

This  is  a  reflex  wave  from  German  critical  specula- 


PRELIMINARY  REMARKS.  i  3 

tion,  which  is  now  surging  with  starUing  effect  upon 
EngHsh  shores.  The  first  impulse  to  this  movement, 
however,  came  from  England  itself,  and  is  traceable 
to  the  deism  of  the  17th  century,  —  the  deism  of 
Hobbes  and  Tindal,  Bolingbroke  and  Hume.  The 
effect  of  British  free-thinkmg  on  the  continent  of 
Europe  can  be  distinctly  traced  in  the  writings  of  the 
time.  It  is  enough  for  the  present  to  say  that  the 
combat  against  the  supernatural,  which  English  deists 
conducted  on  abstract  philosophical  principles,  has 
been  since  carried  forward  on  three  distinct  lines  with 
direct  application  to  the  Bible.  Three  different 
methods  have  been  employed  to  eliminate  the  super- 
natural from  the  Scriptures. 

The  first  is  that  of  the  old  German  rationalists,  of 
whom  Eichhorn  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  Paulus  in 
the  New,  may  be  mentioned  as  leaders  and  represen- 
tatives. The  genuineness  and  credibility  of  the  books 
of  the  Bible  were  not  impugned ;  but  a  method  of 
interpretation  was  adopted  which  reduced  the  miracu- 
lous to  the  merely  marvellous,  and  predictions  to 
v^ague  anticipations  or  shrewd  forecastings  of  the 
future.  The  plagues  of  Egypt,  upon  this  hypothesis, 
were  not  immediate  inflictions,  but  simply  an  accu- 
mulation of  extraordinary  phenomena,  the  like  of 
which,  in  lower  intensity,  are  of  frequent  occurrence. 
The  passage  of  the  Red  Sea  was  not  made  possible  by 
any  divine  intervention,  but  the  waters  were  driven 
back  by  a  high  wind  which  laid  the  shallows  bare. 
The  manna  was  not  a  direct  gift  from  Heaven,  but  a 
natural  product  exuded  from  a  plant  still  found  in  the 


14  PRELIMINARY  REMARKS. 

Arabian  Peninsula.  The  Prophets  were  men  of 
remarkable  sagacity,  who  had  a  clear  insight  into 
the  political  combinations  of  the  period  and  the 
various  tendencies  then  at  work,  from  which  they 
were  able  to  divine,  with  singular  accuracy,  the 
course  of  events.  Much  of  the  language  of  the 
Prophets  is  mere  poetic  fancy  and  highly  wrought 
emblematic  descriptions,  whose  inspiration  is  that  of 
genius  and  of  the  Muses ;  but  it  is  not  in  any  special 
sense  the  very  Word  of  God. 

The  difficulty  with  this  method  was  that  it  assigned 
to  interpretation  an  impossible  task.  It  is  beyond  the 
power  of  hermeneutics  to  expunge  the  supernatural 
from  the  Bible,  which  is  so  firmly  wrought  into  it  at 
every  point  that  it  cannot  be  separated  from  it.  If  the 
genuineness  of  the  sacred  writings  be  conceded,  and 
any  credit  whatever  for  honesty  and  truthfulness  is 
allowed  to  the  writers,  the  language  which  they  use 
and  the  facts  which  they  record  cannot  be  explained 
away.  No  fair  sense  can  be  put  upon  them  which 
will  make  them  consistent  with  the  assumption  that 
there  has  been  no  departure  from  the  ordinary  course 
of  nature  and  the  regular  operation  of  its  established 
laws.  No  amount  of  forcing  that  can  be  applied  to 
their  language,  short  of  completely  setting  aside  its 
obvious  meaning,  can  bring  down  the  miracles,  which 
they  relate,  to  the  effects  of  natural  causes,  or  can  ac- 
count for  the  predictions  which  have  been  manifestly 
fulfilled  without  transcending  the  bounds  of  the  merely 
human.  With  the  most  liberal  allowance  for  excited 
fancy  and  poetical  exaggeration,  there  will  still  remain 


PRELIMINARY  REMARKS.  15 

SO  many  extraordinary  occurrences  and  remarkable 
coincidences,  conspiring  to  an  end  previously  an- 
nounced, or  taking  place  as  was  foretold  by  some 
man  of  God,  that  the  miracle,  which  an  attempt  is 
made  to  escape  in  one  direction,  is  nevertheless  en- 
countered in  another. 

The  supernatural  cannot  be  expunged  from  the 
Bible  by  the  method  of  interpretation.  A  second 
method  that  was  tried  was  that  of  denying  the  trust- 
worthiness of  the  record  and  the  good  faith  of  the 
writers.  The  seed  sown  by  the  English  deists  pro- 
duced upon  French  soil  a  harvest  of  a  different  de- 
scription from  that  which  wc  have  just  considered. 
To  the  frivolity  and  the  godlessness  of  the  period,  all 
religion  was  accounted  a  fraud  practised  upon  the 
masses  by  a  designing  and  interested  priesthood. 
The  populace  were  the  dupes  of  those,  who  imposed 
upon  their  credulity  to  accomplish  their  own  selfish 
and  ambitious  ends.  The  Prophets  and  workers  of 
miracles  were  conscious  impostors  ;  the  sacred  writers 
falsified  the  truth  of  history  in  order  to  maintain  and 
perpetuate  the  cheat.  Thus  the  scoffing  crew  of 
Voltaire  and  his  compeers,  and  the  ignoble  herd  of 
imitators  among  ourselves,  from  Thomas  Paine  to 
Robert  Ingersoll. 

The  trouble  with  this  theory  of  deception  is  that  it 
accounts  for  nothing  which  it  professes  to  explain, 
while  it  shocks  the  moral  sense  of  every  thoughtful 
man.  In  ridding  itself  of  the  supernatural  in  the  Bible, 
it  sweeps  away  the  supernatural  altogether,  and  ut- 
terl\'  discards  the  rcltijious  element  of  our  nature.     It 


I  6  PRELIMINARY  REMARKS. 

imputes  all  religion  to  fraud,  which  is  not  a  satisfac- 
tory explanation  e\^en  of  the  Pagan  religions  ;  for  the 
frauds,  which  have  been  practised  in  connection  with 
them,  depended  for  their  success  upon  a  prior  belief 
in  the  supernatural,  and  could  not  themselves  have 
produced  this  belief.  Then  the  circumstances  and 
character  of  the  miracles  and  the  prophecies  con- 
tained in  the  Bible  are  such  that  the  supposition  of 
fraud  is  preposterous.  And  that  such  purity  and 
excellence  as  characterize  the  religion  of  the  Bible 
could  be  the  work  of  deceivers,  or  find  its  support  in 
fraud,  is  simply  inconceivable.  The  denial  of  the 
veracity  of  the  record  is  of  all  modes  of  escaping 
from  the  supernatural  the  most  shallow,  and  to  all 
right-thinking  and  right-feeling  persons  it  is  the  most 
offensive. 

The  supernatural  cannot  be  abolished  by  adopting 
some  difterent  interpretation  of  the  Bible  which  shall 
bring  all  its  contents  dow^n  to  a  level  with  the  opera- 
tions of  natural  laws,  nor  by  casthig  imputations 
upon  the  honesty  and  truthfulness  of  the  sacred 
WTiters  and  thus  discrediting  their  narrative.  But 
one  resource  remains.  It  is  the  method  of  what  has 
been  denominated  the  higher  criticism.  The  gen- 
uineness of  the  sacred  writings  is  called  in  question. 
It  is  freely  confessed  that  the  writers  of  Scripture  really 
meant  to  affirm  that  miracles  were  actually  wrought 
and  that  prophecies  were  uttered.  At  the  same  time 
no  charge  of  dishonesty  is  brought  against  them ; 
they  doubtless  believed  tliemsclves  that  these  super- 
natural events  which  the)-  record  really   took  place. 


PRELIMIXA  R  Y  RE  MA  RKS.  I  7 

But  such  a  length  of  time  had  intervened  that  legend- 
ary stories  had  grown  to  supernatural  proportions, 
and  the  writers  have  simply  transmitted  to  us  the 
mistaken  belief  of  their  own  times.  It  is  claimed 
that  the  miracles  of  the  Bible  are  not  attested  by  eye- 
witnesses and  contemporaries,  but  by  persons  living 
in  an  age  long  subsequent  to  their  alleged  occur- 
rence ;  and  that  the  prophecies,  so  called,  were  not 
committed  to  writing  until  after  the  events  in  which 
they  have  been  thought  to  be  fulfilled.  The  age  and 
authorship  traditionally  ascribed  to  them  are  not  cor- 
rect ;  a  critical  examination  shows  that  they  must  be 
referred  to  quite  a  different  origin. 

No  objection  can  be  made  to  the  demand  that  the 
sacred  writings  should  be  subjected  to  the  same  criti- 
cal tests  as  other  literary  productions  of  antiquity. 
When  were  they  written,  and  by  whom  ?  For  whom 
were  they  intended,  and  with  what  end  in  view  ?  These 
are  questions  that  may  fairly  be  asked  respecting  the 
several  books  of  the  Bible,  as  respecting  other  books, 
and  the  same  criteria  that  are  applicable  in  the  one  case 
are  applicable  likewise  in  the  other.  Every  produc- 
tion of  any  age  bears  the  stamp  of  that  age.  It  takes 
its  shape  from  influences  then  at  work.  It  is  part  of 
the  life  of  the  period,  and  can  only  be  properly  esti- 
mated and  understood  from  being  viewed  in  its  origi- 
nal connections.  Its  language  will  be  the  language 
of  the  time  when  it  was  produced.  The  subject,  the 
style  of  thought,  the  local  and  personal  allusions,  will 
have  relation  to  the  circumstances  of  the  period,  to 
which  in  fact  the  whole  and  every  part  of  it  must 


1 8  PRELIMINARY  REMARKS. 

have  its  adaptation,  and  which  must  have  their  right- 
ful place  in  determining  its  true  explanation. 

Inspiration  has  no  tendency  to  obliterate  those  dis- 
tinctive qualities  and  characteristics  which  link  men 
to  their  own  age.  It  is  as  true  of  Paul  and  Isaiah  as 
it  is  of  Plato  and  Virgil,  that  their  intellectual  life  and 
writings  received  a  peculiar  impress  from  their  sur- 
roundings. It  is  by  the  application  of  this  principle 
that  literary  forgeries  are  detected.  The  attempt  to 
palm  off  one's  own  production  as  the  work  of  one  of  a 
different  age,  and  subject  to  different  conditions,  is  rare 
ly  successful.  In  spite  of  every  precaution,  something 
will  leak  out  to  betray  the  fact  that  the  real  circum- 
stances of  its  origin  are  different  from  those  that  are 
pretended.  If  now  inspired  writings,  like  others,  are 
in  all  their  literary  aspects  the  outgrowth  of  their 
own  age,  then  the  most  thorough  scrutiny  can  but 
confirm  our  faith  in  their  real  origin ;  and  if  in  any 
instance  the  view  commonly  entertained  of  their  ori- 
gin or  authorship  is  incorrect  in  any  particular,  the 
critical  study  which  detects  the  error,  and  assigns 
each  writing  to  its  proper  time  and  place,  can  only 
conduce  to  its  being  better  understood  and  more 
accurately  appreciated. 

But,  in  applying  the  principles  and  methods  of 
literary  criticism  to  the  books  of  the  Bible,  it  must 
be  borne  in  mind  that  these  books  have  a  character 
peculiarly  their  own,  as  a  revelation  from  God ;  and 
a  criticism  which  denies  this  at  the  outset,  and  con- 
ducts all  its  investigations  upon  this  presumption,  is 
under   a  bias   which   must  necessarily  lead   to   false 


PRELIMIAARV  REMARKS.  19 

conclusions.  There  is  a  Biblical  criticism  which  is 
born  of  unbelief,  and  there  is  a  Biblical  criticism 
which  has  sprung  from  a  reverent  faith  in  the  Divine 
Word ;  and  it  is  not  surprising  that,  proceeding  from 
such  opposite  principles,  they  arrive  at  totally  dif- 
ferent results. 

It  is  not  necessary,  in  order  to  vitiate  its  conclu- 
sions, that  the  unbelieving  criticism  should  formally 
proclaim  the  principles  on  which  it  proceeds,  and  the 
assumptions  which  lie  at  the  basis  of  all  its  investiga- 
tions. These  are  no  less  real,  however,  for  not  being 
announced,  and  for  being  hidden  under  a  show  of  a 
strictly  scientific  procedure,  by  which  they  who 
conduct  it  may  be  themselves  deceived.  The  latent 
principle  which  guides  and  controls  throughout  is, 
nevertheless,  the  elimination  of  the  supernatural  from 
the  Bible.  The  problem  to  which  it  addresses  itself 
is :  How  can  this  result  be  most  effectually  secured, 
and  by  the  most  plausible  method? 

That  this  is  really  the  animus  of  the  movement  can 
be  sufficiently  shown  by  a  survey  of  the  various  hy- 
potheses which  have  been  successively  broached,  and 
the  arguments  by  which  they  have  been  defended. 
The  only  thing  common  to  them  all  is  the  end  at 
which  they  arrive ;  but  this  is  reached  by  the  most 
various  and  opposite  routes.  They  universally  agree 
in  so  dealing  with  the  different  books  of  Scripture 
that  their  testimony  to  the  actual  occurrence  of  mir- 
acles and  the  utterance  of  real  prophecies  shall  be 
discredited  and  nullified ;  but  in  the  method  by 
which  this  result  is  reached  in  individual  cases  there 


20  PRELIMINARY  REMARKS. 

is  endless  discord  and  disagreement,  so  that  the  most 
efifectual  reply  to  these  various  hypotheses  often  is  to 
set  them  over  against  one  another  and  exhibit  their  mu- 
tual contrariety.  In  every  instance  in  which  the  com 
mon  result  can  be  attained  by  a  diversity  of  method, 
we  find  these  different  methods  employed  by  one  or 
another  of  the  critics.  If  the  supernatural  can  be  re- 
moved in  a  given  case  by  a  process  of  interpretation 
in  the  judgment  of  any  critic,  this  method  will  be 
adopted,  and  the  genuineness  of  the  writing  which 
contains  it  will  be  left  unassailed ;  and  any  arguments 
that  may  have  been  advanced  by  others  to  set  it  aside 
will  be  pronounced  inconclusive.  Other  critics  em- 
ployed upon  the  very  same  passage,  and  deeming 
this  method  ineffectual,  maintain  the  cliarge  of  spu- 
riousness  with  arguments  adapted  to  the  purpose, 
but  just  to  the  length  that  to  their  individual  judg- 
ment seems  necessary  to  compass  their  end.  Where 
some  are  satisfied  with  removing  a  word  or  a  clause 
from  the  text,  others  make  bold  to  cast  away  para- 
graphs, or  the  entire  writing  in  which  they  are  found  ; 
and  the  arguments  for  retention  or  rejection,  while 
apparently  satisfactory  to  each  critic's  own  mind,  fail 
to  convince  his  fellows.  So  that  it  is  difficult  to  re- 
sist the  conclusion  that  the  validity  of  the  arguments 
employed  rests,  after  all,  upon  the  end  to  be  effected ; 
and  that  criteria  of  like  nature  and  of  equal  weight 
are  admitted  here  and  discredited  there,  according  to 
the  varying  exigencies  of  the  hypothesis  which  the 
critic  is  maintaining. 

There  is  accordingly  an  unbelieving  criticism  which 


PRELIMINARY  REMARKS.  21 

may  not  openly  avow  its  unbelief,  or  professedly  make 
this  the  basis  of  its  action,  but  nevertheless  is  practi- 
cally governed  in  its  course  and  its  issues  by  radical 
principles  that  are  at  war  with  divine  revelation  ;  and 
there  is  a  believing  criticism  framed  under  the  oppo- 
site principle,  of  the  reality  of  the  supernatural  reve- 
lation given  in  the  Scriptures.  A  sense  of  the  need 
of  a  divine  salvation,  and  a  conviction  that  the  salva- 
tion set  forth  in  the  gospel  of  Christ  meets  this  press- 
ing necessity  of  the  individual  soul  and  of  all  men  as 
it  is  not  and  cannot  be  met  elsewhere,  produces  an 
inward  persuasion  of  the  truth  and  divinity  of  the 
Scriptures  that  cannot  be  set  aside.  He  who  ap- 
proaches them  in  this  state  of  mind,  instead  of  being 
offended  by  the  immediate  divine  interventions  there- 
in recorded,  and  being  under  a  temptation  to  deny 
their  reality  or  to  explain  them  away,  is  prepared  to 
accept  them,  on  proper  evidence,  as  kindred  to  or 
prognostic  of  that  supreme  act  of  Immediate  divine 
interference  which  achieved  the  world's  redemption. 

What  the  one  style  of  criticism  is  thus  under  a  con- 
stant bias  to  set  aside  as  unreal  and  untrue,  the  other 
is  prepared  to  accept  without  difficulty,  whenever  It 
is  properly  attested.  The  latter  consequently  dis- 
putes the  legitimacy  of  the  entire  process  upon  which 
the  unbelieving  criticism  effects  Its  work  of  negation 
and  destruction.  The  antecedent  presumption  that 
all  testimony  which  confirms  the  reality  of  miracles 
and  prophecy  must  necessarily  be  false,  leads  to  the 
suspicion  that  the  records  containing  this  testimony 
must  be  spurious,  and  to  the  admxlssion  of  criteria  of 


2  2  PRELIMINARY  REMARKS. 

spuriousness  which  would  not  have  been  entertained 
but  for  this  previous  suspicion.  Ingenious  and  appar- 
ently formidable  arguments  are  derived  from  a  minute 
and  elaborate  investigation  of  points  of  diction,  of 
style  and  language,  of  aim  and  tendency ;  and  con- 
clusions of  the  most  serious  nature  are  built  on  these 
fine-spun  arguments,  which  lie  after  all  wholly  in  the 
region  of  h}^pothesis,  w^iich  have  no  proof  from  estab- 
lished facts  and  no  basis  in  known  historical  data,  but 
are  so  dexterously  contrived  as  to  avoid  collision  as 
far  as  possible  with  what  is  indisputable  ;  and  thus,  on 
the  ground  of  what  is  purely  conjectural,  it  is  proposed 
to  revolutionize  what  has  always  been  credibly  be- 
lieved and  is  supported  by  an  authority  which  these 
ingenious  processes  cannot  after  all  invalidate. 

What  has  novv-  been  said  casts  no  reflection  upon 
the  motives  or  the  honesty  of  individual  critics.  It 
relates  simply  to  systems  and  methods  of  criticism  as 
such.  The  opposite  spirit  of  these  two  systems  is 
unmistakable  ;  but  it  does  not  follow  that  each  individ- 
ual critic  is  aware  of,  much  less  that  he  is  invariably 
penetrated  by,  the  spirit  of  the  system  to  which  he 
has  addicted  himself.  Earnest  believers  may  be 
ensnared  by  the  specious  character  of  the  arguments 
employed  by  an  unbelieving  criticism,  and  may  not  be 
able  to  emancipate  themselves  from  its  power  and 
hence  may  adopt  its  conclusions ;  just  as  Christians 
may  be  living  under  a  Pagan  civilization,  or  Pagans 
may  be  living  under  a  Christian  civilization, — the  sys- 
tem to  which  they  are  attached  being  the  outgrowth 
of  principles  most  opposite  to  those  which  they  in- 


PRELnTL\  'A  R  V  RE  MA  Rk'S.  o  3 

wardly  adopt,  whether  they  are  themsch'es  sensible 
of  this  contrariety  or  not. 

The  pecuHarity  of  the  present  crisis,  to  which  we 
have  ah'eady  adverted,  does  not  consist  merely  in  the 
fact  that  critical  assaults  are  made  upon  the  genuine- 
ness and  integrity  of  the  books  of  the  Bible.  Such 
assaults  have  been  repeatedly  made,  and  have  been 
conducted  with  great  ingenuity  and  supported  by 
great  learning;  but  the  war  has  hitherto  been  re- 
mote from  our  shores,  only  faint  echoes  of  the  distant 
conflict  reached  our  ears,  and  it  awakened  httle 
interest  or  attention  among  us.  The  evangelical 
churches  of  Great  Britain  and  America  have  to  a 
great  extent  been  secluded  from  these  critical  con- 
tests. They  have  scarcely  been  affected  by  the  agi- 
tation which  struggles  of  this  nature  have  produced  in 
Germany,  which  has  been  their  chief  seat  and  fountain- 
head  during  the  present  century;  and  the  impor- 
tance and  serious  nature  of  these  conflicts  have 
scarcely  been  appreciated  among  us.  We  have  not 
only  been  sheltered  by  the  remoteness  of  our  position, 
and  by  the  barrier  which  a  difl"erence  of  language  has 
interposed,  but  also,  and  still  more,  by  the  absence  of 
any  general  or  w^idespread  sympathy  with  the  theo- 
logical bias  which  these  various  critical  hypotheses 
betrayed.  Religious  thought  among  us  was  actively 
turned  in  quite  a  different  direction.  Questions  of 
doctrine,  of  ecclesiastical  organization,  or  of  practical 
religious  life  were  eagerly  discussed ;  these  absorbed 
the  energies  of  leading  minds  and  engaged  the  atten- 
tion of  the  religious  public.     These  discussions  were 


24  PRELIMINARY  REMARKS. 

conducted  on  the  acknowledged  basis  of  the  divine 
authority  of  the  Scriptures.  Their  integrity  and  gen- 
uineness were  regarded  as  settled  beyond  dispute. 

Some  knowledge  was  indeed  maintained  of  the 
critical  battles  which  were  waging  in  Germany ;  but 
the  questions  which  these  raised  were  not  living  prac- 
tical issues  among  ourselves.  They  were  conse- 
quently looked  upon  as  ingenious  disputations  about 
matters  with  which  we  were  but  little  concerned, 
and  which  had  little  intrinsic  probability  as  judged 
by  Anglo-Saxon  common  sense ;  and  which,  more- 
over, were  urged  in  the  interest  of  a  disbelief  in  the 
divine  original  of  the  Scriptures,  which  had  gained 
small  lodgment  in  this  quarter. 

The  various  hypotheses  which  followed  one  another 
in  quick  succession  in  Germany,  each  having  its  brief 
day  of  popularity  while  it  was  in  the  ascendant, 
scarcely  found  their  way  here  to  the  public  eye, 
through  the  medium  of  translations  or  by  transfusion 
in  our  current  literature,  before  they  were  already 
antiquated  in  Germany  itself,  thrust  aside  by  some 
more  recent  and  popular  novelty,  or  thoroughly  and 
satisfactorily  answered  by  noble  champions  of  the 
faith,  through  whose  learned  labors  Germany  was 
constantly  building  up  a  believing  Biblical  criticism, 
to  match  and  overturn  the  unbelieving  criticism  of 
which  it  was  likewise  the  prolific  hive ;  and  thus 
the  poison  found  its  antidote  already  prepared  by  the 
time  it  had  reached  our  shores. 

Now  however,  by  a  natural  reaction  perhaps,  the 
period  of  theological  controversy  among  us  seems  to 


PRELIMIAARY  REMARKS.  25 

be  yielding  to  one  of  doctrinal  indifferentism.  Ques- 
tions affecting  the  Trinity,  the  atonement,  human 
ability,  the  parity  of  the  ministry,  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism, which  have  agitated  the  Christian  community  by 
strifes  between  different  denominations,  or  different 
factions  in  the  same  denomination,  no  longer  engage 
public  attention  to  anything  like  the  same  extent. 
People  are  growing  impatient  of  doctrinal  and  eccle- 
siastical dissensions,  and  the  tendency  of  the  times  is 
rather  toward  a  Broad  Church  liberalism,  and  sinking 
the  differences  between  hitherto  discordant  bodies  in 
a  more  catholic  fellowship,  if  not  organic  union. 

We  do  not  pause  here  to  discuss  this  prevalent  and 
growing  tendency,  nor  to  distinguish  the  elements  of 
good  and  evil  that  enter  into  it.  We  simply  remark 
upon  its  existence  as  an  obvious  fact,  characteristic 
of  the  present  in  contrast  with  the  recent  past. 

And  concurrently  with  this  indifference  to  doctrinal 
distinctions  there  has  arisen  a  weakening  of  the  strict 
religious  sentiment  which  has  heretofore  pervaded  the 
Christian  community.  There  is  not  the  same  rever- 
ence for  the  absolute  authority  of  Scripture,  nor  the 
same  sense  of  the  imperative  need  of  the  objective  su- 
pernatural salvation  which  it  reveals.  The  distinctive 
doctrines  of  grace  are  less  urgently  and  prominently 
set  forth  in  the  instructions  of  the  pulpit.  In  various 
prominent  and  influential  quarters  the  shallow  and  self- 
sufficient  view  of  man's  estate  is  coming  to  be  more 
and  more  distinctly  formulated,  which  finds  in  men's 
moral  instincts  an  adequate  guide,  and  which  looks 
to  the  forces  of  human  nature  to  work  out  its  own 
salvation. 


26  PRELIMINARY  REMARKS. 

We  have  now  reached  a  juncture  when  the  general 
sense  of  the  need  of  infalhble  guidance  in  the  Script- 
ures has  been  somewhat  shaken  by  a  growing  con- 
fidence in  men's  own  powers,  and  the  fact  of  that 
infallible  guidance  has  been  assailed  from  the  most 
diverse  quarters ;  when  students  of  physical  science 
claim  that  the  facts  of  nature  are  irreconcilable  with 
the  Bible  account  of  the  creation,  the  flood,  and  the 
dispersion  of  the  human  race ;  when  antiquarians 
affirm  that  the  monumental  records  of  Egypt  or  of 
Assyria  are  in  conflict  with  the  alleged  facts  of  the 
sacred  history ;  when  philosophers,  who  have  made 
a  study  of  Comparative  Religion,  deny  that  there  is 
anything  of  consequence  in  the  religion  of  the  Bible 
which  does  not  find  illustrative  parallels  elsewhere 
and  cannot  be  accounted  for  on  purely  natural 
principles ;  when  moralists  bring  into  question  its 
solutions  of  moral  problems  and  challenge  its  al- 
leged divine  decisions  as  indefensible ;  when  social- 
istic schemers  oppose  the  Bible  because  it  stands 
in  the  way  of  their  disorganizing  theories ;  and  the 
wayward  heart  is  now  as  ever  restive  under  its  re- 
straints and  penalties,  and  ready  to  avail  itself  of 
any  pretext  to  escape  them.  The  antagonism  di- 
rected against  the  divine  infallible  authority  of  the 
Bible  from  these  and  other  quarters,  while  it  does  not 
shake  the  citadel  of  its  strength,  nevertheless  has  by 
persistent  repetition  had  its  influence  on  the  public 
mind.  Doubts  and  insinuations  are  freely  uttered  by 
those  who  venture  on  no  positive  assertions  discredit- 
ing the  Scriptures.     And  even  professed  friends  of 


PRELIMINARY  REMARKS.  2'J 

the  Bible  have  said  that  there  must  be  some  abate- 
ment of  its  claims  and  some  modification  of  its 
defences,  that  something  must  be  yielded  to  its 
antagonists  in  the  hope  of  saving  whaf  remains. 

In  this  condition  of  things,  induced  by  the  causes 
now  described,  doubts  and  misgivings,  from  alleged 
critical  discoveries,  find  an  opportunity  for  lodgment 
such  as  has  not  existed  in  the  Christian  community 
of  Great  Britain  and  America  at  any  former  period. 
Hence  the  peculiar  peril  of  the  position  in  which  the 
Church  in  these  lands  finds  itself  at  this  moment, 
and  of  which  the  case  of  Prof.  Robertson  Smith,  in 
the  Free  Church  of  Scotland,  is  one  of  the  most 
characteristic  and  illustrative  incidents.  The  barriers 
of  distance  and  of  language,  in  which  we  found  our 
safety  from  the  critical  battles  that  have  raged  in 
German}^  are  suddenly  thrown  down  and  the  conflict 
is  at  once  transported  to  our  own  shores,  with  no 
interposed  check  or  hindrance,  and  in  the  very  acme 
of  the  struggle. 

The  particular  critical  hypothesis,  which  has  within 
the  last  few  years  risen  to  a  sudden  popularity  and 
just  now  is  in  the  ascendant,  met  \\\\.\\  no  favor  what- 
ever when  it  was  first  suggested  less  than  fifty  years 
ago.  In  falling  in  with  this  novel  scheme  the  Biblical 
critics  have  reversed  all  their  previous  hypotheses  as 
suddenly  and  completely  as  was  done  a  few  years 
since  by  natural  philosophers  in  their  hypothesis  of 
the  origin  of  man,  —  when  from  disputing  the  unity  of 
the  human  race  and  the  possibility  that  the  several 
races  of  mankind  could  have  sprung  from  a  common 


28  PRELIMINARY  REMARKS. 

source,  they  suddenly  swung  to  the  opposite  extrenie 
of  maintaining  a  common  origin  not  only  for  men 
but  for  the  inferior  animals  as  well. 

The  adoption  of  these  views  would  be  attended 
with  very  far-reaching  consequences.  It  would  ren- 
der necessary  a  complete  reconstruction  of  Old  Tes- 
tament history ;  it  v/ould  alter  our  views  entirely  as 
to  the  mode  and  the  nature  of  God's  revelation  to 
Israel.  It  would  compel  a  revision  of  the  question  : 
In  what  sense  can  the  Scriptures  be  regarded  as  the 
Word  of  God,  and  what  measure  of  authority  can  be 
attributed  to  them? 

We  are  thus,  by  the  necessity  of  the  case,  set  to 
grappling  with  the  most  fundamental  inquiries.  We 
must  dig  down  to  the  very  foundations,  and  re-ex- 
amine the  basis  upon  which  our  Christian  faith  re- 
poses. And  this  necessity  is  not  laid  upon  us  a  whit 
too  soon.  It  is  providentially  ordered  that  at  this 
very  time,  when  a  lax  theology  is  drifting  away  from 
the  strict  standard  of  the  Scriptures,  and  is  disposed 
to  govern  its  faith  by  the  moral  intuitions  of  men 
rather  than  by  the  positive  statements  of  the  Word  of 
God,  we  should  be  summoned  to  a  most  thorough 
sifting  of  this  whole  matter,  —  that  w^e  should  be 
driven  to  a  most  minute  and  thorough  inspection  of 
the  inspired  volume,  and  led  to  employ  the  most 
searching  tests  that  can  be  applied  to  it,  in  order  to 
discover  w^hether  it  really  is  what  it  has  hitherto  been 
credited  to  be. 

It  is  under  the  circumstances  just  recited  that  we 
are   now  living,  and  they  speak  to  us  in  tones  which 


PRELIMINARY  REMARKS.  29 

should  not  be  disregarded.  The  soldier  is  expected 
faithfully  to  execute  his  drill  and  evolutions,  and  to 
train  himself  in  all  the  martial  exercises  demanded  of 
him,  even  in  times  of  profound  peace,  in  order  that 
he  may  gain  the  knowledge  and  practised  skill  which 
properly  belong  to  his  vocation.  But  a  new  respon- 
sibility rests  upon  him  in  time  of  actual  war ;  there  is 
a  fresh  demand  for  diligence  when  he  may  soon  be 
summoned  to  the  field  of  strife,  and  the  issue  of  the 
conflict  turn  upon  the  valor  and  dexterity  of  the 
troops  engaged. 

The  venerable  Dr.  Hodge,  who  was  for  nearly 
threescore  years  the  glory  and  the  strength  of  Prince- 
ton Seminary,  was  called  upon  for  some  remarks  in 
the  Week  of  Prayer  at  the  beginning,  I  think,  of  the 
last  year  of  his  life.  The  subject  before  the  meeting 
was  the  Conversion  of  the  World.  It  was  his  habit  on 
such  occasions  to  present  a  cheering  view  derived 
from  the  progress  which  the  Gospel  had  made  or  was 
making,  or  from  the  accomplished  work  of  redemp- 
tion which  is  the  assured  basis  of  the  world's  salva- 
tion, or  the  unfailing  promises  of  God  which  make 
the  issue  certain ;  but  at  the  time  referred  to  he 
recited,  in  long  and  formidable  array,  the  various 
forms  of  opposition  which  are  directed  against  the 
Gospel  within  the  bounds  of  Christendom  itself,  — 
the  materialistic  philosoph}%  the  oppositions  of  science, 
the  socialistic  excesses,  and  showed  in  what  various 
ways  unsanctified  learning,  power  and  influence  in 
irreligious  hands,  and  unchristianized  masses  stand  as 
barriers  to  the  progress  of  truth  and  holiness.     His 


30  PRELIMINARY  REMARKS. 

aim  was  not  to  discourage,  but  to  present  a  truthful 
and  sober  view  of  the  actual  aspect  of  the  world,  and 
of  the  forces  which  are  at  war  against  the  progress 
of  the  Gospel.  It  was  the  trumpet-call  of  the  veteran, 
who  had  fought  his  battles  and  won  his  victories,  sum- 
moning new  recruits  to  the  Holy  War,  and  uttering 
loud  notes  of  warning,  that  the  strife  was  by  no 
means  ended,  that  there  are  many  and  fierce  battles 
yet  to  fight,  and  that  others  must  take  up  the  weapons 
which  he  was  laying  down. 

We  are  coming  now,  as  it  Avould  seem,  to  the  cul- 
mination of  the  struggle.  The  battle  rages  around 
the  citadel.  No  drones  or  cowards  are  wanted  now. 
It  is  not  the  incompetent  and  the  unfaithful  who  can 
serve  the  Church  in  such  a  crisis.  She  can  well 
afford  to  spare  the  idlers  and  stragglers  and  faint- 
hearted from  her  ranks.  The  times  emphatically 
demand  those  who  shall  be  prepared  to  acquit  them- 
selves like  men. 

He  has  a  very  low  conception  of  the  work  of  the 
ministry,  of  the  solemn  duties  and  the  momentous 
responsibilities  which  it  involves,  who  can  suffer  him- 
self to  be  slack  and  negligent  in  his  preparation  for 
it,  or  inactive  and  half-hearted  in  his  discharge  of  it. 
And  he  gives  little  evidence  of  being  called  of  God 
to  the  office,  and  little  prospect  of  usefulness  and 
success  in  it,  who  docs  not  engage,  whether  in  his 
preparatory  studies  or  in  the  actual  labors  of  the 
ministry,  with  a  holy  enthusiasm,  throwing  himself 
into  them  with  all  the  energy  of  his  nature,  —  resolved 
by  the  aids  of  divine  grace  to  make  the  most  of  the 


PRELIM  IX A  R  y  REM  A  RKS.  3  I 

powers  and  faculties  which  God  has  given  him  in  the 
special  line  of  this  high  calling;  seizing  with  eager- 
ness every  opportunity  within  his  reach,  and  training 
him;^clf  by  all  available  methods  to  the  highest  meas- 
ure of  fitness  he  can  secure  to  be  entrusted  with 
the  care  of  souls,  to  be  an  ambassacior  of  God  to 
men,  to  be  a  steward  of  the  mysteries  of  the  King- 
dom of  Heaven.  If  a  charge  so  weighty  and  so 
sacred  as  this  will  not  stir  the  energies  of  a  man  to 
the  utmost,  the  least  that  can  be  said  is,  that  he  shows 
that  he  has  no  appreciation  of  this  high  and  holy 
office,  and  no  fitness  for  it. 

But  besides  this  general  demand  which  is  always 
laid  upon  all  ministers  and  all  candidates  for  the 
ministry,  to  use  the  utmost  zeal  in  the  whole  round 
of  their  professional  or  preparatory  studies,  there  is  a 
call  to  special  diligence  and  thoroughness  now  in  the 
circumstances  which  have  already  been  recited.  If 
supineness  were  ever  admissible,  there  is  a  loud  call 
for  alertness  at  the  present  time.  There  is  a  de- 
mand now,  as  never  before,  for  high  Biblical  scholar- 
ship, for  well-trained  exegetes  and  critics,  —  for  men 
well  versed  in  the  critical  and  speculative  attacks  made 
upon  the  Word  of  God,  and  who  are  well  prepared 
to  defend  it.  The  present  phases  of  critical  and 
speculative  assault  upon  the  Scriptures  need  create 
no  alarm,  as  though  they  were  more  formidable  than 
their  predecessors ;  but  though  these  should  be 
repulsed  and  prove  short-lived,  that  will  not  end  the 
strife.  The  assault  will  be  renewed  at  some  fresh 
point,  or   in   some   other  form.      And  now  that  the 


32  PRELIMINARY  REMARKS, 

critical  battle  is  brought  to  our  own  doors,  it  will  not 
do  to  wait  till  defenders  of  the  faith  in  other  lands 
work  out  a  solution  for  us.  We  must  have  an  Eng- 
lish and  American  scholarship  that  is  fitted  to  grapple 
with  these  questions  as  they  arise.  We  need,  in  the 
ranks  of  the  pastorate,  men  who  can  conduct  Biblical 
researches  and  who  can  prosecute  learned  critical 
inquiries ;  who  can  do,  in  their  own  chosen  field  of 
Scripture  study,  what  German  evangelical  pastors 
have  done,  —  such  as  Baehr  in  his  "  Symbolism  of  the 
Mosaic  Cultus,"  and  Ranke  in  the  critical  defence  of 
the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  Fuller  in  the 
interpretation  of  the  Prophet  Daniel,  and  Keil,  who 
published  his  learned  defence  of  the  books  of  Chron- 
icles and  Ezra  when  he  was  only  a  licentiate. 


THE   OLD   TESTAMENT   IN   THE  JEWISH 
CHURCH.i 

'T^HESE  lectures,  originally  prepared  for  popular 
-*■  delivery,  are  eminently  adapted  for  their  pur- 
pose. Their  author  has  a  remarkable  faculty  for 
presenting  subjects,  that  are  commonly  regarded  as 
dry  and  technical,  in  a  lucid  and  attractive  manner, 
—  with  such  clearness  of  statement,  such  aptness  of 
illustration,  and  such  a  close  logical  connection  from 
first  to  last,  that  the  interest  is  maintained  to  the  end, 
and  his  readers  cannot  fail  to  gain  a  satisfactory  com- 
prehension of  the  conclusions  reached,  and  the  gen- 
eral nature  of  the  grounds  upon  which  they  rest.  No 
one  can  rise  from  the  perusal  of  this  volume  without 
a  high  respect  for  the  learning  and  ability  of  the 
author,  and  a  profound  impression  that  Biblical  Criti- 
cism offers  a  very  wide  and  important  field  for  study; 
an  impression  that  will  be  deepened  in  most  minds, 
p-robably,  by  the  startling  character  of  some  of  the 
opinions  here  confidently  announced,  as  though  they 
were  the  undoubted  results  of  the  latest  and  most 
thorough  scholarship.  It  is  exceedingly  unfortunate 
that  a  volume  w^hich  has  so  many  excellent  points, 

1  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church  :  twelve  lectures  on 
Biblical  Criticism.  By  W.  Robertson  Smith,  M.  A.  New  York  ; 
D,  Appleton  &  Co.     1881.     i2mo,  pp.  446. 


34  THE   OLD    TESTAMENT 

and  which,  from  the  pecuHar  circumstances  attending 
its  pubhcation,  naturally  attracts  so  much  attention, 
does  not  discriminate  between  facts  and  theories ;  but 
—  after  the  method  of  the  German  critics,  who  must 
speak  oracularly,  if  at  all,  and  to  whom  the  self-con- 
sistency of  an  ingenious  hypothesis  sufficiently  recom- 
mends it,  in  the  absence  of  any  evidence  to  support 
it  —  the  purely  conjectural  is  propounded  as  though 
it  were  of  the  same  unquestionable  certainty  with  that 
which  is  really  known. 

These  lectures  throughout  challenge  the  accuracy 
of  the  Jewish  transmission  of  the  Old  Testament  in 
respect  to  its  text,  its  canon,  and  the  constitution  of 
its  separate  books.  The  train  of  investigation  pur- 
sued relative  to  these  various  points  opens  questions 
of  the  highest  consequence,  both  bringing  to  light  a 
large  amount  of  valuable  information,  and  suggesting 
lines  of  inquiry  that  still  remain  to  be  explored ; 
nevertheless,  from  the  deplorable  fault  already  alluded 
to,  it  is  so  conducted  as  to  leave  an  exaggerated  or 
thoroughly  false  impression. 

It  is  readily  conceded  that,  notwithstanding  the 
substantial  unanimity  of  Hebrew  manuscripts,  the 
Masoretic  text  is  not  immaculate.  There  are  some 
obvious  mistakes,  in  certain  books,  which  prove  this ; 
and  the  discrepancies  in  various  parallel  passages,  and 
the  incompleteness  of  a  few  acrostic  poems,  though 
largely  explicable  otherwise,  may  be  partly  due  to 
faulty  transcription.  But  it  is  an  immense  and  un- 
warranted stride  from  these  premises  to  the  assump- 
tion that  —  though  the  Hebrew  text,  as  it  existed  in  the 


IN   THE   JEWISH   CHURCH.  35 

first  Christian  century  has  been  transmitted  with  un- 
paralleled precision  —  "  in  earlier  ages  Hebrew  MSS. 
differed  as  much  as,  or  more  than,  MSS.  of  the  New 
Testament"  (p.  73).  The  allegation  (p.  78),  "that  the 
early  guardians  of  the  text  did  not. hesitate  to  make 
small  changes  in  order  to  remove  expressions  which 
they  thought  unedifying,"  is  wholly  unfounded.  Of 
the  eighteen  so-called  Tikkune  Sopheriin  (Corrections 
of  the  Scribes)  which  are  adduced  in  proof,  Professor 
Smith  himself  admits  that  fifteen  are  irrelevant.  The 
fact  is  that,  in  the  judgment  of  the  best  critics,  the 
entire  series  are  mere  rabbinical  conceits,  and  warrant 
no  suspicion  whatever  of  any  tampering  with  the  text. 
Ishbosheth  may  be  a  contemptuous  nickname  which 
the  son  of  Saul  "  would  never  have  consented  to 
bear;  "  but  who  can  certify  us  that  it  was  not  current 
in  the  rival  kingdom  during  his  lifetime,  or  that  it 
was  not  so  written  by  the  author  of  the  Books  of 
Samuel,  but  was  an  alteration  by  some  copyist  in 
later  times?  The  forced  interpretations,  which  the 
scribes  confessedly  put  upon  the  Law%^  are  no  evld'^wce 
that  they  wilfully  changed  the  written  text,  bu  the 
reverse ;  if  the  Law  could  hav-e  been  accommodated 
to  their  usages  by  altering  its  expressions,  they  would 

1  The  censure  impliedly  cast  on  the  author  of  the  Books  of  Chroni- 
cles (p.  64)  is  quite  gratuitous.  King  Joash  directed  a  temporary  as- 
sessment from  year  to  year  for  the  repair  of  the  Temple,  and  fixed  its 
rate  by  the  example  of  Moses.  (Note  that  the  italic  words  in  the  Eng- 
lish version  of  11.  Chron,  xxiv.  6,  form  no  part  of  the  text.)  It  is  hard 
to  see  what  this  has  to  do  with  a  voluntary  arrangement  in  the  time  of 
Nehemiah  for  a  different  purpose,  or  how  it  appears  that  the  Chroni- 
cler was  under  a  mistake  about  it. 


2,6  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT 

have  been  under  no  temptation  to  do  violence  to  its 
language.  It  is  puzzling  to  account  for  the  concur- 
rence of  all  existing  manuscripts  in  obvious  mistakes, 
or  in  such  an  arbitrary  notation  as  the  extraordinary 
points,  suspended  letters,  and  the  like ;  but  there  is 
nothing  to  require  or  to  justify  the  assumption  of  "  a 
rigorous  suppression  of  discordant  copies  "  (p.  75),  or 
of  a  serious  dissonance  at  any  time  among  Hebrew 
manuscripts. 

Professor  Smith  complains  (p.  74)  that  our  present 
Old  Testament  text  cannot  be  traced  back  beyond 
the  fall  of  the  Jewish  State.  This  is  to  be  regretted, 
doubtless ;  but  it  is  simply  due  to  the  lack  of  any 
adequate  sources  of  information.  If,  as  he  says  of  the 
antecedent  period  (p.  98),  ''there  is  not  a  particle  of 
evidence  that  there  was  a  uniform  Palestinian  text," 
and  its  existence  is  "  a  pure  hypothesis,"  neither  is 
there,  on  the  other  hand,  a  particle  of  evidence  of  a 
discrepant  text  at  all  approaching  the  "  variations  and 
corruptions  found  in  MSS.  of  the  New  Testament." 
This  too  is  a  pure  hypothesis,  only  with  the  difference 
that  all  the  probabilities  and  the  inferences  deducible 
from  known  facts  are  against  it,  and  establish  beyond 
reasonable  doubt  that  there  never  was  any  wide  di- 
vergence of  manuscripts,  and  that  we  now  possess  a 
text  which  is  not  indeed  absolutely  faultless,  but  yet 
substantially  and  even  astonishingly  accurate. 

The  only  accessible  witnesses  to  the  state  of  the 
text  in  the  pre-Christian  period,  outside  of  the  line  of 
Palestine  tradition,  are  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  and 
the  Septuagint  version.    Gesenius's  careful  analysis  of 


IN  THE  yE  WISH  CHURCH.  37 

the  former  has  put  an  end  to  all  thought  of  correcting 
the  Hebrew  text  by  the  Samaritan ;  and  the  variant 
*'ages  assigned  to  the  patriarchs  "  (p.  73)  are  clearly 
due  to  systematic  and  intentional  alteration  and  not 
to  the  errors  of  transcribers ;  they  must  therefore  be 
classed  with  the  arbitrary  changes  characteristic  of  the 
Samaritan  recension.  We  are  very  far  from  any  dis- 
position to  undervalue  the  Septuagint,  or  to  refuse 
such  critical  aid  as  can  fairly  and  legitimately  be 
derived  from  it.  Let  it  be  noted  that  the  question 
between  the  Masoretic  and  the  Septuagint  text  is  one 
of  form  rather  than  substance.  If  the  latter  were  to 
be  substituted  for  the  former  throughout,  which  Pro- 
fessor Smith  is  very  far  from  proposing,  it  would  in- 
volve no  peril  to  the  Christian  faith.  This  may  be 
fairly  inferred  from  the  free  use  made  of  the  Septu- 
agint by  the  inspired  writers  of  the  New  Testament ; 
and  it  would  be  difficult  to  point  out  any  appreciable 
change  that  would  have  resulted  in  the  belief  of  the 
early  Greek  Church,  had  the  Fathers  been  conversant 
with  Hebrew  instead  of  being  limited  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament to  the  use  of  the  Septuagint.  The  matter  in- 
volved is  simply  verbal  precision  and  minute  textual 
accuracy. 

And  here  the  Professor  correctly  informs  us  that  — 
in  consequence  of  mistakes  of  the  translators  ^  (p.  87), 
the  license  which  they  allowed  themselves  in  various 

1  Prof.  W.  R.  Smith  gratuitously  links  copyists  with  translators,  as 
though  the  former  took  the  same  liberties  with  the  text  as  the  latter; 
but  the  cases  are  not  analogous.  Translation  naturally  led  to  eluci- 
dation, while  the  work  of  the  scribe  was  simply  to  reproduce  word  for 
word  and  letter  for  letter. 


2,S  THE   OLD    TESTAMENT 

ways  (pp.  88-90),  and  the  manifold  corruptions  that 
have  since  crept  into  the  text  of  the  Septuagint 
(p.  103),  —  '*it  is  an  affair  of  the  most  deHcate  schol- 
arship to  make  profiteible  use  of  the  Alexandrian 
version  for  the  confirmation  or  emendation  of  the 
Hebrew."  The  statement  that  the  "  readings  of  the 
Septuagint  offer  a  fair  measure  of  the  limits  of  varia- 
tion in  the  early  history  of  the  text  "  must  accordingly 
be  taken  with  very  large  abatement ;  and  the  formula, 
by  which  it  is  proposed  to  determine  v/hich  reading  is 
to  be  preferred  in  the  illustrations  given  (p.  90),  viz. 
"in  cases  of  this  sort  the  shorter  text  is  obviously  the 
original,"  is  by  no  means  so  settled  a  rule,  or  of  so  wide 
application,  as  the  Professor  would  have  us  believe. 

In  its  application  to  the  book  of  Jeremiah,  it  is  par- 
ticularly unfortunate,  as  the  elaborate  discussion  of 
Wichelhaus  abundantly  shows.  On  this  point  we  will 
not  venture  to  quote  Keil,  whose  unfavorable  judg- 
ment of  the  Septuagint  text  is  so  summarily  set  aside 
(p.  85).  But  Graf,  the  corypJicEus  of  the  latest  critical 
speculations,  will  perhaps  be  heard  with  more  respect. 
After  a  careful  comparison  of  the  Greek  and  Hebrew 
text  of  Jeremiah,  he  says,  in  the  Introduction  to  his 
Commentary  (p.  li.),  "after  what  has  now  been  shown 
there  can  no  longer  be  any  doubt  that  the  form  of  the 
text  yielded  by  the  Greek  translator  is  a  mutilated 
and  corrupted  one,  which  arose  out  of  the  text  pre- 
served to  us  in  the  Hebrew,  and  at  a  much  later  time." 
This  is  the  more  noteworthy  as  he  tells  us  (  Vorivort, 
p.  ix.)  :  "  I  began  the  work  with  the  most  favorable 
opinion  of   the  Septuagint,  but  was  soon  led  to  the 


IN   THE   JEWISH  CHURCH.  39 

opposite  view  by  the  convincing  power  of  the  facts," 
which  satisfied  him  that  "  the  suspicion  which  has  been 
expressed  against  the  genuineness  of  certain  passages 
in  the  book,  particularly  the  prophecy  respecting 
Babylon,  chaps.  1.  li.  [which  Prof.  W.  R.  Smith  appears 
to  be  prepared  to  surrender,  pp.  112,  121],  as  well  as 
the  hypothesis  of  a  double  recension  of  the  book, 
which  has  obtained  almost  universal  prevalence  in 
recent  times,  is  utterly  without  foundation."  And 
Delitzsch,  who  is  certainly  indulgent  enough  in  ques- 
tions of  criticism,  says  of  "the  transpositions  occur- 
ring in  the  Book  of  Proverbs,"  to  which  our  author 
also  refers  (pp.  121,  122)  :  *' These  remind  one  of  the 
transpositions  in  Jeremiah,  and  rest,  as  they  do,  upon 
a  mistake  as  to  the  true  relations  of  the  subject- 
matter,"  {Spriichbuch,  p. 39.)  Andjeremiah,ch.xxvii., 
which  is  adduced  to  exemplify  the  superiority  of  the 
Greek  text,  affords  a  signal  proof  of  the  reverse ;  for 
ver.  7,  whose  presence  in  the  Hebrew  and  absence 
from  the  Greek  is  one  of  the  points  remarked  upon 
(p.  115),  was  certainly  in  the  text  w^hen  Chronicles 
was  written,  as  appears  from  the  manifest  allusion  to 
it,  ir  Chron.  xxxvi.  20. 

The  obscurity  which  overhangs  the  final  collection 
and  arrangement  of  the  Old  Testament  canon,  opens 
a  fresh  opportunity  for  theorizing,  in  which  a  modi- 
cum of  facts  is  mingled  with  a  large  infusion  of  doubt- 
ful conjectures.  The  presence  of  apocryphal  books 
and  sections  in  the  Septuagint  is  appealed  to  in  evi- 
dence that  the  extent  of  the  canon  was  fluctuating  and 
uncertain,  while  yet  Professor  Smith   confesses    that 


40  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

these  books  have  no  proper  claim  to  be  regarded  as 
canonical,  and  that  they  never  were  accepted  as  such 
by  the  Jevv^s  in  Alexandria  or  elsewhere.  They  were 
valued  as  aids  to  religious  edification,  but  not  es- 
teemed authoritative.  His  notion  of  the  process  by 
which  the  Old  Testament  was  gradually  brought  to 
its  present  compass  is  substantially  as  follows.  The 
canon  of  Ezra  was  the  Pentateuch  alone.  The  divine 
authority  of  the  Prophets  was  recognized,  but  only 
as  books  for  private  edification.  There  was  no  stand- 
ard edition  of  individual  Prophets,  and  no  fixed  col- 
lection of  the  Prophets  as  a  whole,  till  their  use  in  the 
public  worship  of  the  synagogue  made  it  necessary 
at  a  comparatively  late  date.  It  already  existed  "  in 
the  time  of  Daniel"  (Dan.  ix.  2),  that  is,  as  may  be 
inferred  from  a  critical  opinion  cited  with  apparent 
approbation  on  p.  168,  the  period  of  the  Maccabees. 
*'  The  Psalter,  the  hymn-book  of  the  second  temple," 
did  not  reach  its  finished  form  till  a  still  later  date, 
and  was  added  subsequently,  together  with  Job  and 
Proverbs.  This  is  the  undisputed  portion  of  the 
canon,  whose  authority  has  always  been  practically 
acknowledged,  and  to  which  the  sanction  of  the 
New  Testament  is  given.  The  remainder  of  the  Ha- 
giographa  is  the  region  of  the  aiitiiegoinejia,  books 
whose  authority  was  more  or  less  contested,  but 
which  gradually  worked  their  way  to  canonical  re- 
cognition, though  the  full  and  final  settlement  in 
their  favor  was  not  reached  till  the  end  of  the  first 
Christian  century.  And  he  thinks  it  matter  of  thank- 
fulness   that   the    determination    of    the    canon   was 


IN   THE  JEWISH  CHURCH.  4T 

not  made  sooner,  or  "  the  principles  of  the  Scribes 
and  Pharisees  "  would  have  led  to  a  most  unsatisfac- 
tory result. 

It  will  not  be  necessary  to  review  the  whole  course 
of  this  discussion.  It  is  enough  to  refer  to  one  out- 
*  standing  fact,  which  cannot  be  set  aside.  The  ex- 
press testimony  of  Josephus  assures  us  that  the 
twenty-two  books  of  the  Jewish  canon,  which  are 
universally  admitted  to  be  identical  with  the  present 
Hebrew  Bible,  constituted  a  determinate  body  of 
writings  **  justly  believed  to  be  divine,"  and  which 
had  been  for  ages  sundered  from  all  other  books  and 
ranked  above  them.  This  statement  of  Josephus, 
whatever  question  may  be  raised  about  its  accuracy 
in  details,  unquestionably  represents  the  current  be- 
lief of  his  time.  And  this  is  utterly  inconsistent  with 
a  canon  still  fluctuating  during  the  life  of  our  Lord 
and  His  Apostles.  The  Scriptures  to  which  they  make 
their  appeal  were  the  Old  Testament  as  we  now  have 
it,  as  well  defined  and  settled  as  it  is  at  present.  The 
case "  is  no  more  affected  by  the  disputes  in  Jewish 
schools,  than  the  canonicity  of  the  Epistle  of  James 
is  shaken  by  the  doubts  expressed  by  Luther.  These 
casuistical  questionings  —  or,  as  they  might  rather  for 
the  most  part  be  called,  these  contests  of  rabbinical 
subtlety  —  did  not  touch  the  historic  basis  on  which 
the  canon  rested ;  and  such  as  they  were,  they  were 
directed  not  merely  against  Esther,  Canticles,  and 
Ecclesiastes,  but,  as  Prof.  \V.  R.  Smith  has  to  allow, 
against  what  he  calls  the  undisputed  portion  of  the 
canon  likewise,  £'.  ^.,  Ezekiel   (p.  410)   and  Proverbs 


42  THE   OLD    TESTAMENT 

(p.  170).  And  the  omission  of  Esther  from  the  cata- 
logue of  MeHto  in  the  second  century,  and  from  those 
of  Athanasius  and  Gregory  Nazianzen  in  the  fourth, 
certainly  lends  no  support  to  the  Professor's  view; 
for,  on  his  own  showing,  the  canon  was  then  settled 
and  Esther  was  in  it. 

The  most  significant  discussion  in  the  volume  be- 
fore us,  however,  and  that  for  which  all  that  preceded 
was  designed  to  pave  the  w^ay,  is  that  concerning  the 
constitution  and  date  of  the  Pentateuch.  This  cannot 
be  considered  at  the  close  of  a  notice  already  suffi- 
ciently extended,  but  must  be  treated  in  a  separate 
article. 

In  conclusion,  we  are  compelled  to  say  that  the 
Professor,  with  all  his  brilliancy  and  learning,  seems 
to  be  deficient  in  well-balanced  judgment.  How 
easily  he  is  misled  by  the  ignis  fatuiis  of  novel  and 
ingenious  speculations,  conspicuously  appears  from 
his  adoption  of  the  whimsical  conceit  that  Jehovah 
means  "  Uc  zu/io  causes  rain  or  lightning  to  fall  upon 
the  earth"  (p.  423).  This  is  not  only  giving  the 
preference  to  a  rare  and  somewhat  doubtful  m.eaning 
of  the  verbal  root,  above  that  which  it  uniformly  has 
everywhere  except  in  a  single  poetical  passage  (Job 
xxxvii.  6),  —  and  a  meaning  which,  if  allowed,  con- 
tains in  itself  no  special  reference  to  rain  or  lightning, 
but  would  more  naturally,  when  other  derivations  are 
taken  into  the  account,  suggest  the  sense  '' He  ivJio causes 
to  fall  to  destruction  and  ruin,"  i.  e.,  the  Destroyer, — 
but  it  involves  an  amazing  lack  of  apprehension  of 
what  is  really  characteristic  of  the  religion  of  Israel, 


IN   THE   JElVlSIi   CHURCH.  43 

to  imagine  that  the  one  name  of  God,  in  which  this 
rehgion  reaches  its  highest  expression  of  the  object 
of  worship,  could  possibly  mean  nothing  more  than 
the  Giver  of  Rain.  If  the  profound  meaning  sanc- 
tioned Ex.  iii.  14,  and  adopted  by  the  best  philolo- 
gists, was  to  be  discredited  at  all  hazards,  the 
suggestion  of  Kuenun  and  others,  "  He  zcho  causes  to 
be,''  i.e.,  the  Creator,  would  have  vastly  more  in  its 
favor.  And  if  a  crude  notion  of  the  Deity  was  per- 
force to  be  wrung  out  of  the  Israelitish  conception, 
there  would  be  more  plausibility  in  the  allegation, 
baseless  as  it  is,  that  light  and  fire,  which  are  such 
frequent  emblems  of  the  divine  being  or  attributes, 
gave  shape  to  their  earliest  thoughts  of  the  IMost 
High,  than  that  they  thought  of  Him  simply  as  the 
One  who  made  it  rain. 


PROFESSOR    ROBERTSON    SMITH    ON    THE 
PENTATEUCH. 

TDROFESSOR  ROBERTSON  SMITH  tells  us, 
-^  on  p.  216  of  his  recently  published  lectures  on 
Biblical  Criticism,^  that  *'  the  discrepancy  between 
the  traditional  view  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  the  plain 
statements  of  the  Historical  Books  and  the  Prophets, 
is  marked  and  fundamental."  This  view  is  accord- 
ingly discarded  by  him,  and  another  commended  to 
us  as  representing  "  the  growing  conviction  of  an 
overwhelming  weight  of  the  most  earnest  and  sober 
scholarship."  He  asks  us  to  believe  that  Deuteron- 
omy made  its  first  appearance  in  the  reign  of  Josiah, 
and  that  the  Levitical  Law  was  not  in  existence  until 
the  time  of  Ezra. 

The  hypothesis  which  the  Professor  has  undertaken 
to  unfold  and  defend  has  only  very  recently  attracted 
any  serious  attention.  Professor  Rcuss  of  Strasburg 
claims  the  credit  of  having  given  the  original  impulse 
to  this  newest  school  of  Pentateuch  criticism,  by  pro- 
pounding this  view  in  his  lectures  as  early  as  1833. 
His  pupil,  K.  H.  Graf,  elaborated  it  more  fully  in  his 
treatise  "  De  Templo  Siloncnsi  "  (1855),  in  his   **  Pro- 

1  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church  ;  twelve  lectures  on 
Biblical  Criticism.  By  W.  Robertson  Smith,  M.  A.  New  York : 
D.  Appleton  &  Co.     18S1.     i2mo,  pp.  446. 


ON   THE  PENTATEUCH.  45 

phet  Jeremiah"  (1862),  and  in  his  "  Geschichtlichc 
Biicher  des  Alten  Testaments  "  (1866).  As  proposed 
by  him,  however,  it  was  burdened  with  fatal  incon- 
sistencies which  were  speedily  pointed  out  by  its 
antagonists.  The  divisive  critics,  who  parcelled  out 
the  Pentateuch  among  different  writers,  had  pre- 
viously conducted  their  analysis  and  based  their 
conclusions  upon  literary  considerations  chiefly,  —  the 
style  and  diction,  and  quality  of  thought  and  acquaint- 
ance shown  with  other  parts  of  the  work.  Graf  drew 
his  arguments  from  legislative  considerations,  the 
supposed  development  of  laws,  and  the  order  in  which 
successive  enactments  may  be  thought  to  have  been 
made ;  and  conceiving  the  legislation  of  Deuteron- 
omy to  be  simpler  and  more  primitive,  and  that  of 
Leviticus  to  be  more  complicated  and  developed,  he 
inferred,  contrary  to  the  prevailing  sentiment  of  pre- 
ceding critics,  that  Deuteronomy  is  of  earlier  date 
than  Leviticus,  and  belongs  to  a  prior  stage  in  the 
history  of  the  people.  Meamvhile  he  allowed  the 
conclusions  of  the  critics  in  relation  to  the  narratives 
of  the  Pentateuch  to  remain  undisturbed,  conceding 
a  higher  antiquity  to  the  Elohistic  portion,  which  is  in 
the  closest  afhnity  with  Leviticus,  than  to  thejehovis- 
tic  portion,  to  which  Deuteronomy  attaches  itself 
This  self-contradiction  Kuenen  undertook  to  remove 
by  reversing  the  relation  of  the  Elohist  and  the  Je- 
hovist,  thus  boldly  challenging  the  position  which  all 
preceding  critical  investigations  had  been  supposed 
to  settle  beyond  peradventure. 

To  disinterested  spectators  of  these  hostile  critical 


46  PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

camps,  this  looks  very  like  a  fresh  demonstration  of 
the  precarious  and  inconclusive  nature  of  their  entire 
process  of  argument.  Experiments  without  number 
have  been  made  of  running  the  dissecting  knife 
through  the  Pentateuch ;  and  each  fresh  operator 
has  pronounced,  with  the  utmost  positiveness,  upon 
the  age  of  each  separate  portion,  and  has  pointed 
out  the  influences  under  which  it  was  written  and 
the  condition  of  affairs  when  it  was  produced.  And 
now  everything  has  been  thrown  into  a  fresh  jumble 
again ;  the  whole  order  of  production,  confidently 
insisted  upon  before,  is  suddenly  declared  to  be  a 
mistake ;  everything  must  be  reconstructed  on  a  new 
basis.  In  the  midst  of  this  jargon  of  voices,  clamor- 
ing on  the  one  hand  for  the  priority  of  the  Elohist, 
and  on  the  other  for  the  priority  of  the  Jehovist,  it 
may  be  safe  to  wait  awhile  before  attaching  ourselves 
to  either  party.  Possibly  the  next  critical  discovery 
may  be  that  they  were  contemporaneous. 

Of  course  we  cannot  here  enter  upon  the  intermin- 
able question  as  to  the  real  existence  of  the  various 
writers  among  whom  the  critics  propose  to  parcel 
the  Pentateuch,  and  fortunately  it  is  quite  unnecessary 
for  our  present  purpose.  So  far  as  its  decision  de- 
pends upon  alleged  peculiarities  of  style  and  diction 
it  is  a  purely  literary  question,  which  no  more  affects 
the  antiquity  and  authority  of  the  books  of  Moses  in 
general,  or  of  the  laws  of  Moses  hi  particular,  than 
the  fact  that  a  given  law  of  Congress  was  not  drafted 
throughout  by  the  same  pen,  but  that  certain  words 
or  clauses   or  paragraphs  can  be  traced   to  different 


ON   THE   PENTATEUCH. 


47 


members  of  that  body,  detracts  from  its  authenticity 
or  vaHdity.  The  composite  character  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, supposing  it  estabhshed,  would  not  prove  the 
post-Mosaic  date  of  the  Pentateuchal  legislation  in 
its  present  form,  unless  this  could  first  be  proved  for 
one  or  more  of  its  constituent  parts.  The  several  dates 
of  the  assumed  documents,  and  the  order  of  their 
production,  are  alone  pertinent  to  the  matter  now  at 
issue.     And  here  the  critics  are  confessedly  at  sea. 

We  cannot  deny  to  the  authors  of  this  latest  hy- 
pothesis the  praise  of  a  high  degree  of  ingenuity  in 
its  construction,  of  consummate  dexterity  in  adapting 
it  to  the  emergencies  of  the  case  and  in  marshalling 
all  available  materials  for  its  support,  and  of  unflinch- 
ing intrepidity  —  or  rather  a  veritable  audacity  — 
in  pushing  it  to  its  last  results,  so  that  it  is  absolutely 
beyond  the  reach  of  the  I'ednctio  ad  absiirdinn  argu- 
ment; for  the  most  preposterous  conclusions  are 
accepted  without  hesitation,  and  paraded  as  genuine 
discoveries.  Kuenen  and  Wellhausen  have  shown  us 
by  what  clever  tricks  of  legerdemain  they  can  con- 
struct Castles  in  the  Air,  and  produce  histories  which 
have  positively  no  basis  whatever  but  their  own  ex- 
uberant fancy;  while  Lagarde  makes  the  practical 
application  of  their  principles  by  demanding  the  over- 
throw of  the  Christian  Church  and  its  institutions,  as 
the  mere  outgrowth  of  Pharisaical  superstition.  The 
temporary  applause  which  has  followed  upon  the 
performance  of  these  novel  feats  is  no  augury  of  its 
abiding  popularity,  much  less  of  its  assured  success. 
The  boastful  claims  of  its  advocates  will  not  disturb 


48  PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

the  equanimity  of  those  who  remember  with  what 
rapidity  hypothesis  has  succeeded  hypothesis,  and 
one  phase  of  criticism  has  grown  up  after  another,  in 
the  fruitful  soil  of  German  speculation. 

It  is  substantially  a  revival  of  ideas  which  were 
almost  simultaneously  suggested  by  Vatke,  George, 
and  Von  Bohlen,  in  1835,  but  which  then  fell  utterly 
flat.  De  Wette,^  in  his  review  of  these  "three  young 
critics,"  dryly  suggested  that  there  was  a  reason  for 
this  hypothesis  coming  to  the  surface,  inasmuch  as  the 
criticism  of  the  Pentateuch  could  only  thus  complete 
the  entire  round  of  possible  assumptions.  And  he 
said  of  the  reconstruction  of  Israelitish  history  upon 
the  basis  proposed,  that  *'  the  only  thing  lacking  to 
make  it  attractive  is  truth ;  "  that  "  whether  from  a 
dread  of  individualism  inspired  by  the  Hegelian  philos- 
ophy, a  predilection  for  development  and  self-impelled 
struggles  upward,  or  a  love  of  paradox,  they  have 
linked  the  history  of  Hebraism  not  with  the  fixed 
point  of  the  grand  creations  of  Moses,  but  have  sus- 
pended its  beginnings  upon  airy  nothing."  Hupfeld^ 
repudiated  in  the  strongest  terms  the  distinctive 
principle  of  their  hypothesis  (as  of  Graf's  and  Kuen- 
en's)  that  Deuteronomy  is  the  earliest  instead  of  the 
latest  portion  of  the  Pentateuch,  —  calling  it  "  a  mon- 
strous error  that  turned  everything  topsy-turvy,  and 
perverted  and  entangled  the  questions  at  issue,  but 
did  not  solve  them."     Riehm,^  in   1854,  considered  it 

1  "  Studien  imd  Kritiken  "  for  1837,  pp.  955,  98 1. 

2  "De  Primitiva  Festorum  Ratione,"  1851,  p.  i. 

3  "Die  Gesetzgebung  Mosis  im  Lande  Moab,  Vorrede,"  p.  v. 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH.  49 

a  "critical  or  rather  uncritical  view,"  which  was  already 
"  antiquated  "  and  unworthy  of  attention.  And  there 
is  little  likelihood  that  this  hypothesis,  even  in  its 
most  recent  phase,  will  win  its  way  to  universal  favor, 
when  critics  such  as  Riehm,  Dillmann,  Kleinert,  Marti, 
Delitzsch,  Klostermann,  Bredenkamp,  and  D.  Hoff- 
mann^ have  pronounced  against  it,  not  to  speak  of 
the  assaults  made  upon  it  from  the  rear  by  those  who 
charge  it  with  a  timid  conservatism  and  with  not 
being  thorough-going  enough  in  the  work  of  demo- 
lition. It  is  apparent  that  this  hypothesis  affords  us 
no  firm  footing,  were  we  "to  embrace  it.  If  all  that 
has  thus  far  been  asked  were  to  be  conceded,  no 
guarantee  is  or  can  be  given  against  fresh  demands 
in  the  same  direction.  It  is  only  the  arbitrary  pleas- 
ure of  the  critics,  and  nothing  in  the  nature  of  the 
case,  which  leads  them  with  their  principles  and 
methods  to  stop  where  they  do. 

In  five  passages  in  the  Pentateuch  (Ex.  xvii.  14, 
xxiv.  4,  xxxiv.  27 ;  Num.  xxxiii.  2 ;  Deut  xxxi.  9, 
22,  24),  as  Prof.  Robertson  Smith  correctly  informs 
us,  Moses  is  said  to  have  written  down  certain  things. 

^  Riehm  reviewed  Graf's  positions  in  the  "  Studien  und  Kritiken  " 
for  1868  and  1872;  DiHrnann,  "  Die  Biicher  Exodus  und  Leviticus," 
1880;  Kleinert,  "Das  Deuteronomium  und  der  Deuteronomiker," 
1872;  Marti,  "Traces  of  the  so-called  Grundschrift  of  the  Hexateuch 
in  the  Pre-exilic  Prophets  of  the  Old  Testament,"  in  the  Jahrbiicher 
fiir  Protestantische  Theologie,  18S0;  Delitzsch,  a  series  of  articles  in 
"  Luthardt's  Zeitschrift  fiir  Wissenchaft  und  Leben,"  1880  ;  Kloster- 
mann, in  the  "Zeitschrift  fiir  Lutherische  Theologie  und  Kirche," 
1877;  Bredenkamp,  "  Gesetz  und  Propheten,"  1S81  ;  D.  Hoffmann. 
"  Magazin  fiir  die  Wissenchaft  des  Judenthums,"  1876-80. 


50  PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

The  express  statement  of  his  authorship  in  these 
cases  docs  not  exclude  it  in  others,  any  more  than 
it  follows,  from  Isa.  viii.  I  and  xxx.  8,  that  Isaiah 
wrote  nothing  but  what  is  referred  to  in  those  verses. 
The  natural  presumption,  on  the  contrary,  is  that  if 
he  wrote  those  scraps  of  the  History  and  those  sec- 
tions of  the  Law,  he  also  wrote  others  which  it  was 
quite  as  important  to  have  recorded.  These  recog- 
nitions of  the  fact  that  whatever  was  memorable 
should  be  committed  to  writing  for  safe  preservation, 
and  that  Moses  was  the  proper  person  to  write  it, 
would  rather  lead  us  to  Expect  that  Moses  would 
record  the  history  and  the  legislation  in  which  he 
bore  so  prominent  a  part,  and  incline  us  to  believe 
that  "the  book,"  to  which  reference  is  made  (Ex. 
xvii.  14  Heb.),  is  such  a  comprehensive  work  upon 
which  he  was  then  already  engaged,  or  which  at  least 
he  intended  to  prepare. 

But  we  shall  lay  no  stress  upon  presumptions.  We 
shall  concern  ourselves  simply  with  duly  certified 
facts ;  and  as  the  discussion  of  Prof.  W.  R.  Smith 
relates  merely  to  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch,  we  shall 
confine  ourselves  to  these.  And  here  w^e  adopt  the 
appropriate  division,  which  he  gives  us  (pp.  316,  fif.), 
into  '*  three  principal  groups  of  laws  or  ritual  ob- 
servances, in  addition  to  the  Ten  Commandments," 
viz:  I.  The  Collection,  Ex.  xxi.-xxiii.  2.  The  Deu- 
teronomic  Code,  Deut.  xii.-xxvi.,  as  distinguished 
from  what  is  purely  hortatory  and  historical  in  the 
book.  3.  The  Levitical  Legislation,  which  does  not 
form  a  compact  code  like  the  preceding,  but  is  scat- 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH.  51 

tcred  through  several  parts  of  Exodus  and  the  books 
of  Leviticus  and  Numbers,  Three  of  the  passages 
above  adduced  speak  of  Moses  as  writing  laws.  In 
Ex.  xxiv.  4  he  is  said  to  have  written  "  ail  the  words 
of  the  Lord."  This  the  Professor  (p.  331)  would  re- 
strict to  the  Ten  Commandments.  But  after  God  had 
uttered  these  by  His  own  voice,  and  the  terrified  peo- 
ple had  asked  that  Moses  should  henceforth  speak 
with  them,  and  not  God,  the  LORD  gave  them  His 
commands  through  Moses  (Ex.  xx.  22  fif.),  including 
a  body  of  judgments  or  ordinances  (ch.  xxi-xxiii.). 
Then  (xxiv.  3)  Moses  came  and  told  the  people  all  the 
words  of  the  LORD,  —  of  course  not  merely  the  Ten 
Words  which  they  had  themselves  heard  Him  speak, 
but  all  that  God  had  charged  him  to  say  to  them, 
and  particularly  "  the  judgments,"  which  are  there- 
fore separately  specified.  "  And  all  the  people  an- 
swered with  one  voice,  and  said,  All  the  words  which 
the  Lord  hath  said,  will  we  do."  Now,  unless  any 
one  is  prepared  to  maintain  that  the  people  here 
promised  obedience  to  the  Ten  Commandments  only, 
and  not  to  the  judgments  which  Moses  had  just  re- 
peated to  them  from  the  mouth  of  God,  he  must  ad- 
mit that  both  are  included  in  the  words  of  the  Lord, 
which  the  very  next  verse  declares  that  Moses  wrote, 
and  which  (ver.  8)  entered  into  the  covenant  then 
formed  between  Jehovah  and  Israel.  It  could  not  be 
more  explicitly  stated  than  it  is,  that  this  first  collec- 
tion of  laws  dates  from  the  time  immediately  fol- 
lowing the  exodus.  It  was  then  reduced  to  writing, 
formally  read   in   the   audience  of  the  people,  their 


52  PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

submission  to  it  pledged,  and  the  covenant  of  God 
with  Israel  ratified  on  the  basis  of  it  with  appropriate 
ceremoiTJes.  It  even  claims  priority  to  the  tables  of 
the  law  deposited  in  the  Ark,  whose  authenticity  and 
antiquity  are  vouched  for  in  the  most  unimpeachable 
manner,  and  are  not  disputed  by  Prof.  W.  R.  Smith. 

Again,  at  the  renewal  of  the  covenant  after  the  sin 
of  the  Golden  Calf,  Moses  is  directed  to  write  certain 
words,  which  are  not  *'  expressly  identified  with  the 
Ten  Words  on  the  tables  of  stone,"  but  are,  on  the 
contrary,  expressly  distinguished  from  them  (Ex. 
xxxiv.  27,  28).  The  ambiguity  arising  from  the 
omission  of  the  subject  of  the  verb  in  the  last  clause 
of  verse  28  is  removed  by  a  comparison  of  verse  i. 
It  was  the  Lord,  not  Moses,  who  wrote  the  Ten 
Commandments  upon  the  tables  which  were  carried 
to  the  summit  of  Sinai  for  this  purpose.  Moses  wrote 
upon  some  material,  not  indicated,  the  words  con- 
tained in  Ex.  xxxiv.  10-26,  which  is  substantially 
repeated,  from  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  xx. 
23,  xxlii.  12-33),  being  the  specifications  there  given 
respecting  the  service  of  God,  and  the  pledge  on  His 
part  to  subdue  the  Canaanites  before  them.  They 
had  grossly  violated  their  duty  to  God,  which  wrought 
a  forfeiture  of  His  pledge  to  them.  Hence  these 
portions  of  the  Covenant  are  singled  out  and  enforced 
upon  the  people  afresh.  The  rewriting  of  these 
extracts  is  an  additional  confirmation  of  the  existence 
of  the  Code  from  which  they  were  taken,  and  is 
equivalent  to  a  new  assertion  of  its  Mosaic  origin. 

In  Deut.  xxxi.  9,  we  read  ''  Moses  wrote  this  law:  " 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH.  53 

and  (vers.  24-26)  *'  When  Moses  had  made  an  end  of 
writing  the  words  of  this  law  in  a  book,  until  they  were 
finished,  Moses  commanded  the  Levites  ....  say- 
ing, Take  this  Book  of  the  Law  and  put  it  in  the  side 
of  the  Ark."  If  it  is  possible  for  words  to  convey  the 
idea  that  the  entire  code  of  laws  here  spoken  of, 
which  cannot  be  less  than  Deut.  xii.-xxvi.,  was 
written  by  Moses,  this  idea  is  here  expressed ;  and 
no  amount  of  arguing  about  the  variety  of  mean- 
ings that  may  be  given  to  the  term  laiv  can  make 
it  different.  The  fact  that  *'  all  the  words  of  this 
law  "  were  to  be  written  on  plastered  stones  on  Mount 
Ebal  (Deut.  xxvii.  3)  can  create  no  difficulty.  This 
statement  finds  abundant  illustration  in  the  walls 
of  tombs  and  temples  in  Egypt,  and  its  numerous 
monuments  written  all  over  with  hieroglyphical  le- 
gends. And  it  surely  requires  no  great  effort  to 
believe  it  feasible  to  trace  these  laws  in  plaster  as  a 
symbolic  declaration  that  they  were  thenceforth  the 
laws  of  the  land.  Written  in  letters  five  times  the  size 
of  those  in  ordinary  Hebrew  Bibles,  they  could  all 
be  embraced  in  the  space  of  eight  feet  by  three.  The 
famous  Behistun  inscription  of  Darius,  in  its  triple 
form,  is  twice  as  long  as  this  entire  Code,  besides  being 
carved  in  bold  characters  on  the  solid  rock,  and  in  a 
position  difficult  of  access  on  the  mountain  side. 

And  the  whole  book  of  Deuteronomy  purports  to 
be  a  series  of  discourses  delivered  by  Moses  to  the 
people  in  the  plains  of  Moab,  inculcating  and  enforc- 
ing this  Law.  The  Professor  reminds  us  that  these 
were  not   ''  taken   down  by  a  shorthand  reporter ;  " 


54  PROF.  ROBERTSOM  SMITH 

and  he  queries  whether  it  is  certainly  the  meaning 
of  Deut.  xxxi.  24  that  we  have  this  body  of  laws 
"  word  for  word  "  as  it  was  written  down  by  Moses. 
But  under  cover  of  this  regard  for  absolute  precision, 
it  will  not  do  to  fritter  away  the  entire  record.  That 
Moses  in  his  oral  discourse  uttered  in  every  case 
exactly  the  words  reported  to  us,  just  those  and 
neither  less  nor  more,  we  are  not  concerned  to  affirm  ; 
but  that  he  did  deliver  such  discourses,  and  that  they 
are  here  preserved  in  their  substantial  import,  is  fully 
certified,  unless  the  credibility  of  the  book  can  be 
impeached.  And  this  code  of  laws  is  substantially  as 
it  came  from  the  pen  of  Moses,  if  any  reliance  can  be 
placed  upon  the  record. 

So,  too,  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  Levitical  laws  is 
abundantly  declared  by  the  formulas  with  which  they 
are  introduced,  and  which  recur  over  and  over  again : 
The  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  or  the  Lord  spake  unto 
Moses  and  Aaron ;  and  the  formulas,  by  which  they 
are  often  followed,  e.g.,  Lev.  vii.  37,  38;  xxiii.  44; 
xxvi.  46 ;  xxvii.  34.  The  occasion  is  recited  upon 
which  particular  laws  were  delivered ;  and  the  circum- 
stances connected  with  these  enactments  are  insepar- 
ably united  with  the  historical  narrative  of  the  time. 

Now  as  to  the  origin  of  these  several  codes  of  laws 
there  can  be  no  possibility  of  mistake.  It  is  not 
merely  affirmed  in  a  credible  history,  of  whose  truth 
we  have  abundant  guarantee,  but  the  nature  of  the 
case  precludes  falsehood  or  error.  An  accepted  sys- 
tem of  legislation,  whose  authority  is  confessed  and 
submitted  to,  has,  in  that  fact,  the  strongest  possible 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH. 


55 


proof  of  its  genuineness.  No  forged  body  of  laws 
could  ever  be  imposed  upon  any  people.  No  suppo- 
sititious code,  issued  in  the  name  of  Moses  in  a  subse- 
quent age,  could  have  been  accepted  without  inquiry, 
and  established  as  the  law  of  the  land.  It  is  indeed 
supposable  that  the  current  laws  and  usages  of  any 
given  period  might  be  popularly  supposed  to  be  more 
ancient  than  they  really  were.  But  this  is  not  what 
we  are  asked  to  believe.  We  are  told  that  the  first 
that  is  known  of  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  is  that  it 
was  found  in  the  Temple  in  the  days  of  Josiah.  It 
claims  to  be  the  work  of  Moses,  but  it  never  eman- 
ated from  him.  Its  enactments  had  never  been  in 
force  before.  No  such  laws  were  known  at  any  time 
during  the  history  of  the  people.  They  were  not  in 
harmony  with  existing  customs  or  with  prevailing 
ideas,  but  were  in  some  essential  points  directly  an- 
tagonistic to  them.  It  was  prepared  with  the  view  of 
inaugurating  a  new  departure,  of  carrying  into  effect 
reforms  which  Hezekiah  had  made  a  vigorous  attempt 
to  introduce,  but  had  failed.  Such  was  the  hostility 
of  the  masses,  and  such  the  influence  of  parties  in- 
terested in  opposing  them,  that  "  a  violent  and  bloody 
reaction  "  followed  under  Manasseh,  and  "  in  Josiah's 
time  the  whole  work  had  to  be  done  again  from  the 
beginning"  (p.  244).  And  yet  a  newly  found  book, 
purporting  to  be  the  Law  of  Moses,  but  which  **  had  no 
external  credentials  "  (p.  351),  and  which,  if  the  facts 
be  as  alleged,  every  one  must  have  known  was  not 
what  it  claimed  to  be,  w^as  at  once  accepted  by  Josiah, 
"  to  whom   it  was   of  no   consequence  to   know  the 


56  PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

exact  date  and  authorship  of  the  book"  (p.  363). 
One,  at  least,  of  its  provisions  was  unwelcome  to  the 
priests  (p.  362),  but  they  raised  no  question  as  to  the 
origin  of  a  code  so  mysteriously  discovered ;  and 
under  its  potent  influence,  regulations  were  readily 
carried  into  effect,  which  had  been  so  stubbornly  re- 
sisted before.  And  Ezra,  it  seems,  met  with  similar 
success  in  introducing  the  Levitical  Code  after  the 
exile.  If  Mr.  Gladstone  could  but  find  some  law- 
book in  Dublin  which  had  never  been  heard  of  before, 
how  easily  and  amicably  the  whole  Irish  question 
might  be  settled  ! 

But  this  use  of  the  name  of  Moses,  we  are  told,  is 
simply  "  a  legal  fiction ;  "  *'  in  Israel  all  law  was  held 
to  be  derived  from  the  teaching  of  Moses"  (p.  385). 
Such  a  notion  could  not  have  arisen  unless  Moses 
really  was  the  great  legislator  of  the  nation,  and  some- 
thing more  than  the  Ten  Commandments  was  directly 
traceable  to  him.  This  of  itself  creates  a  presump- 
tion in  favor  of  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  codes  as- 
cribed to  him,  unless  there  be  good  reason  to  the 
contrary.  The  instances  which  are  adduced  to  show 
that  customs  or  statutes  of  a  later  date  were  imputed 
to  Moses,  admit  of  no  such  interpretation,  and  could 
only  be  distorted  to  this  end  by  one  intent  upon  mak- 
ing out  a  case.^ 

1  Prof.  W.  R.  Smith  says  (p.  387):  "A  peculiarly  clear  case  of 
this  occurs  in  the  law  of  war.  According  to  i.  Sam.  xxx.  24,  25,  the 
standing  law  of  Israel  as  to  the  distribution  of  booty  was  enacted  by 
David,  and  goes  back  only  to  a  precedent  in  his  war  with  the  Amale- 
kites  who  burned  Ziklag.  In  the  priestly  legislation  the  same  law  is 
given  as  a  Mosaic  precedent  from  the  war  with  Midian  (Num.  xxxi.  27)." 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH.  57 

The  style   in  which  the  laws  arc  framed,  and  the 
terms  in  which  they  are  drawn  up,  point  to  the  sojourn 

The  fact  is,  that  Moses  gave  no  law  upon  the  subject  whatever.  It  is 
simply  related,  as  one  of  the  incidents  of  the  battle  with  Midian',  that 
the  prey  was  divided  into  two  parts  between  them  who  went  out  to 
battle  and  all  the  congregation.  The  circumstances  were  peculiar,  and 
no  general  rule  was  enacted.  David  did  not  divide  the  booty  into 
two  equal  parts,  but  ordered  that  the  two  hundred  who  guarded  the 
baggage  should  individually  have  like  shares  with  the  four  hundred  who 
engaged  in  the  conflict ;  and  the  division  was  not,  as  Moses  directed,  be- 
tween the  army  on  the  one  hand  and  the  people  on  the  other,  but  between 
the  two  divisions  of  his  little  army,  while  to  the  people  at  large  he  simply 
sent  presents.  A  more  exact  precedent  is  found  in  Josh.  xxii.  8,  though 
even  in  that  instance  no  law  was  enacted.  David  made  the  first  stat- 
ute in  relation  to  the  matter ;  though  some  critic  may  be  able  to  dis- 
cover that  even  this  is  only  a  *'  legal  fiction,"  that  being  attributed  to 
David  which  was  really  originated  by  Judas  Maccabeus,  who  gave  an 
equal  share  of  the  spoils  of  the  enemy  to  the  feeble  and  needy  classes 
(11.  Mace.  viii.  28,  30).  In  Ezra  ix.  11,  "where  a  law  of  the  Pentateuch 
is  cited  as  an  ordinance  of  the  Prophets  "  (p.  310),  the  Prophets  are  in- 
clusive of  Moses  (Deut.  xviii.  18;  Hos.  xii.  13),  not  distinguished  from 
him. 

It  is  further  alleged  (pp.  319,  432)  that  there  are  conflicting  state- 
ments respecting  the  position  of  the  Tabernacle  with  respect  to  the 
camp  of  Israel,  only  one  of  which  can  be  true  history,  while  the  other 
must  be  later  law  veiled  in  historic  form ;  but  the  apparent  discrepancy 
is  due  to  the  interpreter,  not  to  the  text.  It  is  brought  about  by  the 
fashionable  method  of  dissecting  the  Pentateuch,  and  then  viewing  the 
separate  paragraphs  in  their  isolation  and  without  regard  to  their  con- 
nection, or  only  so  much  regard  to  it  as  will  choose  variance,  where 
that  is  possible,  in  preference  to  harmony.  We  protest  against  the 
entire  procedure,  notwithstanding  the  eminence  and  ability  of  those 
who  indulge  in  it.  It  opens  a  boundless  field  for  the  display  of  the 
critic's  ingenuity,  but  it  is  not  rational  interpretation,  and  would  as 
easily  create  the  semblance  of  self-contradiction  in  any  author  to  whom 
it  should  be  applied.  If  a  meaning  be  given  to  Ex.  x.xxiii.  7-1 1  which 
it  cannot  bear  in  the  connection  in  which  it  is  found,  but  which  it  is 
assumed  that  it  might  have  had  in  some  other  imaginable  connection 
—  and  especially  if,  with  Dillman,  the  sense  of  vers.  1-6  be  altered  by 


58  PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

in  the  wilderness,  prior  to  the  occupation  of  Canaan, 
as  the  time  when  both  the  Levitical  and  the  Deuter- 

leaving  out  words  or  clauses  ad  libitum,  —  it  may  be  made  to  appear 
that  according  to  this  passage,  and  a  few  others,  the  Sacred  Tent  stood 
outside  of  the  camp  ;  whereas  it  is  elsewhere  spoken  of  as  pitched  in  the 
centre  of  the  camp.  But  if  we  discard  imaginary  possibilities,  and  give 
to  these  verses  their  obvious  sense  as  they  stand,  the  alleged  discrep- 
ancy disappears.  Immediately  after  the  ratification  of  God's  covenant 
with  Israel,  Moses  went  up  into  the  Mount  and  received  direction  to 
make  a  sanctuary  in  which  God  might  dwell  among  His  people.  The 
sin  of  the  Golden  Calf  ruptured  the  covenant  and  put  an  end  to  all  pro- 
ceedings under  it.  Without  going  on  to  construct  the  Tabernacle 
according  to  the  specifications  given  him,  he  sets  before  the  eyes  of  the 
people  a  visible  sign  of  their  altered  relation  to  the  Lord  by  pitching  a 
provisional  tabernacle  outside  of  the  camp,  and  at  a  distance  from  it^ 
to  signify  that  God  would  not  remain  in  the  midst  of  them  (Ex.  xxxiii.  3). 
It  is  called  '■''the  tabernacle"  (ver.  7)  because  it  is  definitely  conceived 
by  the  writer  as  the  one  used  for  the  purpose,  and  which  was  well  re- 
membered by  him  and  by  his  readers.  (Compare  the  use  of  the  He- 
brew article  in  Ex.  ii.  15 ;  Num.  xi.  27  ;  Hab.  ii.  2.)  And  it  is  possible, 
as  the  Septuagint  assumes  and  many  commentators  have  supposed, 
that  the  tent  referred  to  is  the  one  which  had  already  attained  a  sacred 
character  from  its  having  been  occupied  by  Moses  in  his  capacity  of 
the  representative  of  God  to  the  people,  —  to  which  they  had  come  to 
inquire  of  God,  and  from  which  he  had  delivered  the  divine  responses, 
adjudications,  and  laws  (Ex.  xviii.  13-16).  Joshua,  Moses'  servant, 
though  an  Ephraimite,  remained  in  the  Tabernacle  when  Moses  left  if 
(xxxiii.  II),  since  the  Levites  had  not  yet  been  set  apart  to  the  service 
of  the  sanctuary.  The  Tabernacle  is  in  this  passage  spoken  of  as  the 
place  of  divine  revelation  (vers.  7,  9,  n ),  and  no  mention  made  of  sacri- 
fice for  the  simple  reason  that  the  Levitical  ceremonial  was  not  insti- 
tuted at  the  Tabernacle  until  the  structure  for  which  directions  were 
given  on  the  Mount  had  first  been  built  and  set  up  (Ex.  xl.,  Lev.  i.). 
In  Num.  xi.  24,  26,  30  ;  xii.  4,  5,  persons  are  said  to  go  out  of  the  camp 
unto  the  Tabernacle,  and  out  of  the  Tabernacle  into  the  camp ;  but  this 
does  not  prove  the  Tabernacle  to  have  been  outside  of  the  camp.  If  a 
gentleman  goes  out  of  his  yard  into  his  house,  it  does  not  follow  that 
his  house  is  not  in  his  yard.  The  camp  considered  as  the  abode  of  the 
people  had  its  limits  within  as  well  as  without.     An  open  space,  such 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH.  59 

onomic  codes  were  produced  (Lev.  xvlii.  3  ;  Deut. 
xii.  9).  The  standing  designation  of  Canaan  is,  "  The 
land  which  the  Lord  giveth  thee  to  possess  it"  (Deut. 
XV.  4,  7;  xxi.  I,  23).  The  laws  look  forward  to  the 
time  **  when  thou  art  come  into  the  land,  etc.,  and 
shalt  possess  it "  ^  (Deut.  xvii.  14;  Lev.  xiv.  34, 
xix.  23,  XXV.  2),  or  **  when  the  Lord  hath  cut  off 
these  nations,  and  thou  succeedest  them  and  dwellest 
in  their  cities"  (Deut.  xix.  i),  as  the  period  when 
they  are  to  go  into  full  operation  (Deut.  xii.  i,  8,  9). 
The  place  of  sacrifice  is  not  where  Jehovah  has  fixed 
His  habitation,  but  **  the  place  which  Jehovah  shall 

as  reverence  required,  separated  the  tents  of  the  people  from  the  Tent 
of  God ;  and  this  must  be  traversed  in  passing  from  one  to  the  other. 
It  was  just  as  natural  under  the  circumstances  for  an  Israelite  to  dis- 
tinguish the  camp  from  the  sacred  enclosure  of  the  Tabernacle,  as  it  is 
for  a  person  in  New  York  City  to  speak  of  driving"  out  to  Central 
Park,  which  is  nevertheless  within  the  city  limits.  So  that  all  that  the 
Professor  tells  us  about  early  sanctuaries  being  outside  of  cities,  and 
Ezekiel  paving  the  way  for  the  sanctuary  being  located  in  the  midst 
of  the  people,  is  quite  irrelevant.  Num.  x.  1,0  is  adduced  to  prove 
that  the  Sanctuary  was  outside  the  camp  when  the  people  were  on  the 
march;  but  it  makes  no  mention  of  the  Sanctuary;  it  simply  says  that 
the  Ark  went  before  them,  when  they  left  Sinai,  as  their  guide.  And 
this  is  not  in  conflict  with  ver.  21.  (Compare  iv.  15-21.)  To  suppose 
such  a  contradiction  within  the  compass  of  a  few  verses  is  to  impute 
the  most  extraordinary  heedlessness  to  the  writer,  or,  if  any  prefer, 
the  compiler  of  the  book.  While  the  Tabernacle  and  the  sacred  ves- 
sels had  their  place  assigned  them  between  the  tribes  as  they  moved 
forward,  the  Ark,  which  was  the  symbol  and  the  seat  of  God's  pres- 
ence, was  singled  out,  as  we  are  expressly  told,  to  lead  the  way. 

1  This  is  the  case  even  in  Deut.  xix.  14,  where  the  last  clause  of  the 
verse  makes  it  apparent  that  the  setting  of  the  landmarks  did  not  pre- 
cede the  enacting  of  the  Law.  The  Hebrew  for  "they  of  old  time  " 
means  simply  "first,"  and  is  applicable  to  those  who  originally  marked 
the  boundarv,  at  whatever  date. 


6o  PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

choose  to  place  His  name  there  "  (Deut.  xii.  5,  10  ff., 
xiv.  23  ff.,  xvi.  2,  6  ff.).  Israel  is  contemplated  as 
occupying  a  camp  (Lev.  xvi.  26,  28,  xxiv.  lO,  14,  23  ; 
Num.  V.  2-4,  xii.  14,  15),  and  living  in  tents  (Lev.  xiv.  8  ; 
Deut.  xvi.  7),  and  in  the  wilderness  (Lev.  xvi.  21,  22). 
The  bullock  of  the  sin-offering  was  to  be  burned  with- 
out the  camp  (Lev.  iv.  12,21)  ;  the  ashes  from  the  altar 
were  to  be  carried  without  the  camp  (vi.  11).  The  leper 
was  to  have  his  habitation  without  the  camp  (xiii.  46)  ; 
the  priest  was  to  go  forth  out  of  the  camp  to  inspect 
him  (xiv.  3)  ;  ceremonies  are  prescribed  for  his  ad- 
mission to  the  camp  (ver.  8),  as  well  as  the  interval 
which  must  elapse  before  his  return  to  his  own 
tent.  In  slaying  an  animal  for  food  the  only  possi- 
bilities suggested  are  that  it  may  be  in  the  camp  or 
out  of  the  camp  (xvii.  3).  The  law  of  the  consecra-. 
tion  of  priests  respects  by  name  Aaron  and  his  sons 
(viii.  2  ff.).  Silver  trumpets  were  made  to  direct  the 
calling  of  the  assembly  and  the  journeying  of  the 
camps  (Num.  x.  2  ff.).  The  ceremonies  of  the  red 
heifer  were  to  be  performed  without  the  camp 
(Num.  xix.  3,  7,  9),  and  by  Eleazar  personally 
(vers.  3,  4).  The  law  of  purification  provides  sim- 
ply for  death  in  tents  and  in  the  open  fields  (vers. 
14,  16).  How  differently  laws  are  worded  when 
framed  specifically  for  a  time  of  settled  abodes  may 
be  seen  from  (Lev.  xiv.  34  ff.)  ''house,  ""walls," 
"  stones,"  "  plaster,"  "  without  the  city,"  etc.  All 
this,  and  much  more  of  the  same  sort,  we  must  sup- 
pose to  be  "  legal  fiction ;  "  but  it  would  be  too 
"artificial"   (p.  321),  in  the  Professor's  view,  to  ini- 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH.  6 1 

aglne  that  Moses  could  speak  of  himself  in  the  third 
person,  as  Isaiah  (vii.  3  ff.),  Jeremiah  (xxxvi.  4  ff.), 
Hosea  (i.  2  ff.),  and  the  evangelists  Matthew  (ix.  9) 
and  John  (xiii,  23)  have  done.^ 

This  peculiarity  of  these  laws  carries  with  it  the 
evidence  that  they  were  not  only  enacted  during  the 
sojourn  in  the  wilderness,  but  that  they  were  then 
committed  to  writing.  Had  they  been  preserved 
orally,  the  forms  of  expression  would  have  been 
changed,  insensibly,  to  adapt  them  to  the  circum- 
stances of  later  times.  It  is  only  the  unvarying 
permanence  of  a  written  code  that  could  have  per- 
petuated these  laws  in  a  form  which  no  longer  de- 
scribed directly  and  precisely  the  thing  to  be  done, 

1  The  Professor  demands  proof  "  that  Moses  would  write  such  a 
verse  "  as  Num.  xii.  3.  If  Paul  could  say,  comparing  himself  with 
the  other  apostles,  "  I  labored  more  abundantly  than  they  all,"  and 
John,  without  any  imputation  upon  his  modesty,  could  call  himself 
"  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,"  is  it  altogether  insupposable  that 
Moses,  who  frankly  relates  his  own  backwardness  to  obey  God's  call 
(Ex.  iv.  ID  ff.),  his  neglect  to  circumcise  his  child  (vers.  24-26),  and 
the  sin  which  excluded  him  from  the  Promised  Land  (Num.  xx.  12), 
should  refer  with  equal  impartiality  and  in  no  boastful  spirit  to  the 
unexampled  meekness  displayed  by  him  under  circumstances  of  extra- 
ordinary provocation }  But  if  any  deem  it  impossible  that  Moses 
could  have  penned  such  a  statement  about  himself,  however  necessary 
to  his  own  vindication  and  to  the  truth  of  history,  it  surely  does  not 
follow  that  Moses  is  not  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch.  Least  of  all 
can  they,  whose  own  theory  rests  on  the  assumption  of  an  extended 
series  of  interpolations,  and  of  emendations  and  additions  adlibitian,  by 
successive  editors,  object  with  any  show  of  reason  to  the  hypothesis 
that,  in  a  very  few  instances,  a  word  or  a  clause  or  a  paragraph  may 
have  been  inserted  in  the  writings  of  Moses  by  some  competent  and 
duly  authorized  person  for  the  sake  of  explanation,  or  of  greater  com- 
pleteness of  the  record. 


62  PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

but  must  be   mentally  adapted  to  an  altered  state  of 
affairs  before  it  could  be  carried  into  effect. 

But  suppose  that  we  yield  our  assent  to  this  notion 
that  the  Israelites  had  the  singular  custom  of  issuing 
all  their  laws  in  the  name  of  Moses,  and  that  they 
continued  to  do  so  down  to  the  time  of  Josiah  and  after 
the  Exile,  still  expressing  them  as  though  Israel  were 
encamped  in  the  wilderness  of  Sinai  or  on  the  plains 
of  Moab.  It  is  true  that  no  instance  of  the  kind  is 
recorded  in  any  historical  book  of  the  Old  Testament. 
David  and  Solomon  and  Jehoshaphat  and  Hezekiah 
issue  their  orders  and  enforce  their  regulations  in 
their  own  name  and  by  their  own  authority.  Ezekiel, 
who,  we  are  told,  represents  an  intermediate  stage 
between  Deuteronomy  and  Leviticus,  makes  no  pre- 
tence of  Mosaic  authority  in  all  that  he  says  respect- 
ing the  Temple  and  its  worship  and  the  Holy  Land. 
The  idea  of  a  legal  fiction  never  dawned  upon  the 
author  of  the  Books  of  Kings,  who  records  the  find- 
ing of  the  Law  in  the  Temple,  but  has  no  suspicion  of 
its  recent  origin.  Let  us,  however,  waive  all  objec- 
tion on  this  ground.  But  the  further  insuperable 
difficulty  remains  that,  by  the  hypothesis  under  con- 
sideration, laws  are  attributed  to  a  period  for  which 
they  have  no  meaning  or  fitness.  Legislation,  as 
Prof,  W.  R.  Smith  himself  insists,  and  this  is,  in 
fact,  the  basis  on  which  his  whole  argument  profess- 
edly rests,  —  legislation  must  be  adapted  to  the  times 
in  which  it  is  issued.  Its  aim  is  practical ;  it  con- 
cerns matters  of  present  obligation,  and  its  statutes 
are   enacted   with   the  view  of  being   enforced    and 


ON  THE   PENTATEUCH.  6^ 

obeyed.  Laws  are  never  issued  to  regulate  a  state 
of  things  which  has  passed  away  ages  before,  and 
can  by  no  possibility  be  revived.  What  are  we  to 
think,  then,  of  a  hypothesis  which  assigns  the  code 
of  Deuteronomy  to  the  reign  of  Josiah,  or  shortly 
before  it,  when  its  injunction  to  exterminate  the 
Canaanites  (xx.  16-18)  and  the  Amalekites  ^  (xxv. 
17-19),  who  had  long  since  disappeared,  would  be  as 
utterly  out  of  date  as  a  law'  in  New  Jersey  at  the 
present  time  offering  a  bounty  for  killing  wolves  and 
bears,  or  a  royal  proclamation  in  Great  Britain  order- 
ing the  expulsion  of  the  Danes?  A  law  contemplat- 
ing foreign  conquests  (xx.  10-15)  would  have  been 
absurd  when  the  urgent  question  was  whether  Judah 
could  maintain  its  own  existence  against  the  en- 
croachments of  Babylon  and  Egypt.  A  law  dis- 
criminating against  Ammon  and  Moab  (xxiii.  3,  4), 
in  favor  of  Edom  (vers.  7,  8),  had  its  warrant  in  the 
Mosaic  period,  but  not  in  the  time  of  the  later  kings. 
Jeremiah  discriminates  precisely  the  other  way,  prom- 
ising a  future  restoration  to  Moab  (xlviii.  47)  and 
Ammon  (xlix.  6),  which  he  denies  to  Edom  (xlix. 
17,  18),  who  is  also  to  Joel  (iii.  19),  Obadiah,  and 
Isaiah  (Ixiii.  1-6),  the  representative  foe  of  the 
people   of  God.     The  special  injunction  to  show  no 

1  An  insignificant  remnant  of  this  once  powerful  people  seems  to 
have  survived  in  the  secluded  fastnesses  of  Mount  Seir  (i.  Chron.  iv. 
42,  43),  which  five  hundred  Simeonites  were  competent  to  destroy.  The 
date  of  this  incident  is  not  stated.  It  is  mentioned  in  connection  with 
a  fact  belonging  to  the  reign  of  Hezekiah  (ver.  41)  and  is  probably  to 
be  referred  to  the  same  period ;  but  the  Amalekites  had  ceased  to  be 
formidable  from  the  time  of  Saul  and  David. 


64  PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

unfriendliness  to  Egyptians  (Deut.  xxiii.  7)  is  insup- 
posable  in  a  code  issued  under  prophetic  influence  at 
a  time  when  the  Prophets  were  doing  everything  in 
their  power  to  dissuade  the  people  from  alliance  or 
association  with  them  (Isai.  xxx.  i  ff.,  xxxi.  i  ;  Jer. 
ii.  18,  36).  The  allusions  to  Egypt  imply  familiarity 
with  and  recent  residence  in  that  land;  an  impres- 
sive argument  for  obedience  is  drawn  from  the  mem- 
ory of  bondage  in  Egypt  (Deut.  xxiv.  18,  22  ;  compare 
ver.  9),  or  of  deliverance  from  it  (Deut.  xiii.  5,  10, 
XX.  I  ;  Lev.  xix.  36,  xxvi.  13  ;  Num.  xv,  41)  ;  warn- 
ings are  pointed  by  a  reference  to  the  diseases  of 
Egypt  (Deut.  vii.  15,  xxviii.  60).  And  how  can  a 
code  belong  to  the  time  of  Josiah,  which,  while  it 
contemplates  the  possible  selection  of  a  king  in  the 
future  (Deut.  xvii.  14  ff.),  nowhere  implies  an  actual 
regal  government,  but  vests  the  supreme  central 
authority  in  a  judge  and  the  priesthood  (xvii.  8-12; 
xix.  17)  ;  which  lays  special  stress  on  the  require- 
ments that  the  king  must  be  a  native  and  not  a 
foreigner  (xvii.  15),  when  the  undisputed  line  of 
succession  had  for  ages  been  fixed  in  the  family  of 
David,  and  that  he  must  not  **  cause  the  people  to 
return  to  Egypt"  (ver.  16),  as  they  seemed  ready 
to  do  on  every  grievance  in  the  days  of  Moses  (Num. 
xiv.  4),  but  which  no  one  ever  dreamed  of  doing 
after  they  were  fairly  established  in  Canaan?^ 

1  It  would  not  be  surprising,  even  on  natural  principles,  for  Moses 
to  have  anticipated  that  the  people  might  some  time  desire  a  king,  and 
to  prohibit,  in  that  event,  the  display  and  luxurious  indulgence  which 
characterize  Oriental  courts.  That  Samuel  disapproved  of  the  peo- 
ple's hankering  after  a  king  under  circumstances  which  implied  an  un- 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH.  65 

And  it  is  quite  as  incongruous  to  place  the  Lcvitical 
law  after  the  Exile.  Professor  Dillmann,  though  he 
conceives  that  "  the  Book  of  the  Law  did  not  receive 
its  final  form  and  arrangement  until  after  the  Exile 
and  in  the  time  of  Ezra,"  nevertheless  protests  against 
the  hypothesis  as  *'  irrational "  that  '*  the  priestly  laws 
and  those  of  the  cultus  were  first  committed  to  writ- 
ing, or  actually  first  framed,  in  the  Exile  or  in  Baby- 
lonia, where  no  cultus  whatever  existed."  ^  And  then 
there  are  detailed  accounts  of  the  Mosaic  Tabernacle, 
reciting  the  contribution  of  materials  for  its  construc- 
tion,^  with  minute  specifications  of  the  number  and 


timely  setting  aside  of  himself  and  a  want  of  confidence  in  God  (i.  Sam. 
viii.  7,  8;  x.  18,  19),  does  not  imply  that  the  law  in  Deuteronomy  was 
unknown  to  him.  On  the  contrary,  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Samuel 
plainly  shows  that  it  was  then  in  existence,  or  that  he  believed  that  it 
was,  by  the  allusions  to  it,  or  the  adoption  of  its  language,  in  this  very 
narrative  :  e.  g.,  i.  Sam.  viii.  3,  "took  bribes  and  perverted  judgment," 
(compare  Deut.  xvi.  19);  ver.  5,  "make  us  a  king  .  .  .  like  all  the 
nations,"  (compare  Deut.  xvii.  14) ;  x.  24,  "him  whom  the  Lord  hath 
chosen,"  (compare  Deut.  xvii.  15) ;  xii,  14,  "  obey  his  voice  and  not  rebel 
against  the  commandment  of  the  Lord''  (compare  Deut.  ix  23;  i.  43). 
The  Hebrew  expressions  in  these  several  passages  are  identical,  even 
where  the  English  version  varies.  Solomon's  violation  of  the  law  only 
shows  how  men  may  and  do  transgress  known  law  under  strong  tempta- 
tion. And  he  may  have  palliated  his  offence  as  not  contravening  the  real 
spirit  and  intent  of  the  statute.  His  numerous  alliances  gave  stability 
to  his  kingdom,  and  assurance  of  peace  with  surrounding  nations,  and 
he  could  surely  avoid  the  snare  of  their  idolatry.  He  amassed  silver 
and  gold,  but  he  spent  vast  sums  on  the  Temple.  He  multiplied  horses 
for  the  sake  of  adding  to  his  military  strength,  but  he  had  no  thought 
of  taking  the  people  back  to  Egypt.  Compare  Isaiah's  description  of 
a  like  state  of  things  under  Uzziah  (Isai.  ii.  6,  7). 

1  "  Die  Bucher  Exodus  und  Leviticus,"  Vorwort,  p.  viii. 

2  Delitzsch,  in  his  Preface  to  Professor  Curtiss's  valuable  treatise  on 
"  The  Levitical  Priests,"  notes  the  interesting  circumstance  that  the 


66  PROF.   ROBERTSON  SMITH 

dimensions  of  its  boards,  their  sockets  and  tenons 
and  bars,  of  its  various  coverings  and  the  mode  of 
their  preparation,  and  how  they  are  to  be  joined  by 
loops  and  taches,  of  its  various  articles  of  furniture, 
and  the  instruments  of  the  service,  and  precise  direc- 
tions as  to  the  manner  in  which  they  should  be 
wrapped,  and  by  whom  they  should  be  carried,  and 
what  place  they  should  have  in  the  ranks  during  the 
journeyings  through  the  wilderness.  All  this  is  stated 
with  the  utmost  precision,  and  every  particular  in- 
sisted upon  as  of  real  consequence.  And  we  are 
asked  to  believe  that  this  is  all  a  fiction  of  the  time 
of  Ezra  and  of  the  Second  Temple,  when  it  could 
serve  no  imaginable  purpose.  Prof.  W.  R.  Smith 
tells  us  (p.  357),  **It  is  very  noteworthy  and,  on  the 
traditional  view,  quite  inexplicable  that  the  Mosaic 
sanctuary  of  the  Ark  is  never  mentioned  in  the  Deu- 
teronomic  Code."  It  is  mentioned  in  Deut.  x.  1-8, 
not  to  speak  of  xxxi.  9,  25,  26;  and,  by  the  common 
consent  of  critics,  the  whole  book  of  Deuteronomy 
is  one  in  its  language,  its  character,  and  its  aims. 
But  why  any  one  should  expect  the  Ark  to  be  men- 
tioned in  a  code  which  had  no  occasion  to  speak  of 
it,  we  are  not  informed.  It  is,  however,  much  more 
inexplicable,  on  the  Professor's  own  hypothesis,  that 
the  Ark  is  described  in  such  detail  and  such  promi- 
nence given  to  it  in  the  Levitical  Code  (Ex.  xxv.  10- 
22,  etc.),  if  this  was  prepared  for  the  guidance  of 

original  words  for  "fine  linen,  purple,  and  scarlet,"  which  reappear  so 
often  in  the  Mosaic  description  of  the  sanctuary,  are  the  ancient  He- 
brew terms,  and  not  their  Aramaic  equivalents  which  are  found  in 
writings  after  the  Exile. 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH.  6 J 

the  priests  and  the  conduct  of  the  ritual  in  the  days 
of  Ezra ;  whereas  the  Ark  perished  in  the  destruction 
of  the  First  Temple,  and  was  not  reproduced  subse- 
quently. And  why  should  directions  be  given  about 
the  Urim  and  Thummim  (Ex.  xxviii.  30;  Num. 
xxvii.  21),  which  had  ceased  to  be  of  any  practical 
account  (Ezra  ii   6'^  ;   Neh.  vii.  65)? 

Now,  what  is  there  to  hinder  us  from  believing  the 
laws  of  the  Pentateuch  to  be  the  production  of 
Moses,  as  they  claim  to  be,  and  as  their  style  and 
contents  declare  them  to  be?  Prof.  W.  R.  Smith, 
enlightens  us  upon  this  point  (p.  333)  :  — 

"  It  is  a  very  remarkable  fact,  to  begin  with,  that  all  the 
sacred  law  of  Israel  is  comprised  in  the  Pentateuch,  and  that, 
apart  from  the  Levitical  legislation,  it  is  presented  in  codified 
form.  On  the  traditional  view,  three  successive  bodies  of 
law  were  given  to  Israel  within  forty  years.  Within  that  short 
time  many  ordinances  were  modified,  and  the  whole  law  of 
Sinai  recast  on  the  plains  of  Moab.  But  from  the  days  of 
Moses  there  was  no  change.  With  his  death  the  Israelites 
entered  on  a  new  career,  which  transformed  the  nomads  of 
Goshen  into  the  civilized  inhabitants  of  vineyard-land  and 
cities  in  Canaan.  But  the  divine  laws  given  them  beyond 
Jordan  were  to  remain  unmodified  through  all  the  long 
centuries  of  development  in  Canaan,  an  absolute  and  im- 
mutable code.  I  say,  with  all  reverence,  that  this  is  im- 
possible." 

The  idea  of  development  is  in  the  air;  and  yet 
it  is  possible  that  it  may  be  applied  to  some  things 
that  do  not  call  for  it  and  will  not  admit  of  it.  The 
"  nomads  of  Goshen  "  had  been  settled  for  more  than 


68  PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

four  centuries  under  the  government  of  the  most 
highly  civihzed  and  the  most  thoroughly  organized 
empire  in  the  ancient  world.  They  were  employed 
in  building  treasure-cities  for  Pharaoh  (Ex.  i.  ii),  in 
the  manufacture  of  brick  (Ex.  v.  7  fif.),  in  masonry, 
and  in  all  manner  of  service  in  the  field  (Ex.  i.  14). 
They  were  skilled  in  working  metals,  carving  wood, 
and  engraving  gems  (Ex.  xxxi.  2  ff.,  xxxv.  30  ff.), 
in  spinning,  weaving,  and  embroidery  (Ex.  xxxv.  25, 
26).  Their  familiarity  with  the  cultivation  of  the 
soil  is  attested  not  only  by  such  statements  as  Num. 
xi.  5,  XX.  5  and  Deut.  xi.  10,  but  by  the  express  pro- 
visions of  what  the  Professor  himself  regards  as  their 
oldest  extant  code  of  laws  (Ex.  xxii.  5,6),  including 
the  regulations  respecting  first-fruits  (xxii.  29,  xxiii. 
19),  the  Aveekly  Sabbath  (xxiii.  12,  xxxiv.  21),  the 
sabbatical  year  (xxiii.  10,  11),  the  festivals  of  the 
harvest  and  the  ingathering  (xxiii.  15,  16),  not  to 
speak  of  the  requirement  of  the  shew-bread  and  of 
the  meat  and  drink  offerings.  The  Israel  of  the 
exodus  could  not,  therefore,  have  been  at  so  great  a 
remove  from  "  the  civilized  inhabitants  of  the  vine- 
yard-land and  cities  in  Canaan."  Even  though  the 
Mosaic  Tabernacle  were  to  be  remanded  to  the  region 
of  fable,  it  would  still  be  true  that  tradition  attributed 
the  arts  employed  in  its  construction  to  the  generation 
that  left  Egypt,  and  the  monuments  of  that  land  lend 
this  abundant  corroboration.  But  enough  besides 
remains  to  rivet  our  conclusion,  which  even  the 
wildest  criticism  must  respect,  unless  it  would  destroy 
the  whole  basis   on  which  it  can  rest  itself,  and  deny 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH.  69 

that  there  is  any  certainty  as  to  the  condition  of  the 
Israehtes  under  Moses,  in  which  case  the  entire  ob- 
jection is  admitted  to  be  groundless. 

And  where  habits  and  manners  remain  fixed,  as 
they  proverbially  do  in  the  East,  there  could  be  little 
reason  for  change  in  the  laws  of  the  simple  agricul- 
tural population  of  Palestine,  eschewing  as  they  did 
all  foreign  trade  or  travel,  and  holding  so  limited 
intercourse  with  other  nations.  Even  through  all 
changes  in  the  national  government,  the  tribal  organi- 
zation continued  at  least  until  the  time  of  the  Exile, 
the  usages  of  society  underwent  little  alteration,  and 
the  affairs  of  each  community  were  managed  very 
much  in  the  same  manner  from  age  to  age. 

But  the  objection  is  completely  neutralized  when 
we  consider  further  that  the  Mosaic  Code  leaves 
abundant  room  for  all  the  modifications  that  could 
be  demanded  by  the  progressive  life  of  the  people. 
It  is  not,  and  was  not  intended  to  be,  a  complete 
system  of  political  institutions ;  and  objections  have 
been  made  to  It  on  this  very  ground  of  its  lack  of 
completeness,  urging  that  it  could  never  have  been 
put  in  actual  operation  without  the  supply  of  some 
important  gaps  in  the  legislation.  The  fact  is,  that 
the  Mosaic  regulations  presuppose  and  were  super- 
induced upon  an  already  existing  political  constitution 
and  customs  that  had  the  force  of  laws.  The  aim  of 
Moses  simply  was  to  establish  and  perpetuate  the 
covenant  relation  between  Israel  and  Jehovah.  It  was 
not  to  give  fixity  to  one  particular  system  of  civil  ad- 
ministration, but  to  incorporate  and  express  religious 


70  PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

ideas  in  the  national  life.  Hence,  some  of  his  laws 
are  purely  ethical,  and  were  not  intended  to  be  en- 
forced by  the  magistrate:  (Ex.  xxii.  21-24,  xxiii.  2, 
3,  9;  Deut.  XV.  5,  6,  xvi.  20,  xix.  8,  9,  xxiv.  13,  15). 
The  specific  regulations  which  they  contain  were 
adopted  or  modified,  as  the  case  might  be,  from  pre- 
existing usages.  And  all  that  was  not  expressly 
ordained  by  divine  sanction  was  left  free  either  to 
remain  as  it  was,  or  to  shape  itself  as  circumstances 
might  require  or  .as  the  principles  of  the  Mosaic 
religion  and  constitution  might  suggest.  There  was 
abundant  flexibility  here,  and  all  the  opportunity  for 
development  that  could  be  desired.  Thus  submission 
to  rulers  is  inculcated  (Ex.  xxii.  28)  without  pre- 
scribing any  definite  form  of  government.  The 
authority  of  elders  (Num.  xi.  16),  princes  (Num. 
xxxii.  2,  xxxvi.  i),  and  other  existing  officials  is 
recognized,  but  there  is  nothing  to  require  that  pub- 
lic functionaries  should  preserve  this  unvarying  type. 
A  monarchy  was  contemplated  in  the  future,  but  was 
not  enjoined ;  it  was  left  entirely  to  the  wishes  of  the 
people  and  the  course  of  events ;  and  when  the  time 
arrived,  the  transition  was  made  without  a  jar.  Moses, 
acting  under  a  present  necessity,  created  judges  and 
based  his  appointment  on  a  decimal  division  of  the 
people  (Ex.  xviii.  21,  22);  but  this  particular  form 
of  organization  is  not  once  mentioned  in  his  codes  of 
laws,  much  less  perpetuated  by  express  divine  sanc- 
tion. In  Ex.  xxi.  6,  xxii.  8,  9,  to  come  before  the 
legitimate  tribunal  is  to  come  before  God ;  but  who 
should  be  clothed  with   judicial  functions,  and   how 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH.  71 

these  should  be  exercised,  is  not  specified.  The 
Deuteronomic  Code  directs  that  there  shall  be  judges 
in  every  city  (xvi.  18),  and  that  the  ultimate  decision 
of  controversies  shall  lie  with  the  priests  and  the 
judge  at  the  religious  centre  of  the  nation  (xvii. 
8-12)  ;  but  the  terms  are  general,  and  Jehoshaphat 
was  not  hindered  from  enlarging  the  judiciary  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  needs  of  his  own  time  (ll.  Chron. 
xix.  5,  8). 

The  three  codes  of  law  above  mentioned  belong, 
it  is  claimed,  to  different  periods  in  Israel's  history, 
and  represent  distinct  grades  of  social  culture  and 
development,  and,  particularly,  successive  stages  in 
their  religious  advancement.  Prof.  W.  R.  Smith  tells 
us  that  "  in  the  first  legislation  the  question  of  cor- 
rect ritual  has  little  prominence"  (p.  343),  and  it 
"presupposes  a  plurality  of  sanctuaries"  (p.  352). 
The  Law  of  Deuteronomy,  on  the  other  hand,  is  "  a 
law  for  the  abolition  of  the  local  sanctuaries,  as  they 
are  recognized  by  the  first  legislation"  (p.  353). 
''  The  first  legislation  has  no  law  of  priesthood,  no 
provision  as  to  priestly  dues."  It  "  assumes  the  right 
of  laymen  to  offer  sacrifice,"  and  ''  presupposes  a 
priesthood  whose  business  lies  less  with  sacrifice  than 
with  the  divine  Torah,  which  they  administer  in  the 
sanctuary  as  successors  of  Moses,  — for  the  sanctuary 
is  the  seat  of  judgment."  This  priesthood  consisted 
of  the  entire  body  of  the  Levites,  who  were  "  priests 
of  local  sanctuaries  "  throughout  the  w^iole  land  (pp. 
358,  359).  "Deuteronomy  also  knows  no  Levites 
who  cannot  be  priests,  and  no  priests  w^ho  are  not 


72  PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

Levites ;  "  and,  in  abolishing  the  local  sanctuaries,  it 
makes  provision  for  the  priests  who  had  previously 
ministered  in  them  (p.  360).  But  '*  Deuteronomy 
knows  nothing  of  a  sacrificial  priestly  Torah  "  (p. 
371),  such  as  the  Levitical  Code.  According  to  this 
hypothesis,  then,  these  three  codes  severally  repre- 
sent three  periods  in  the  religion  of  Israel.  The  first 
sanctions  various  local  sanctuaries  where  laymen  offer 
sacrifice,  and  where  the  Levites  —  who  are  indiscrimi- 
nately clothed  with  priestly  prerogatives  —  administer 
judgment.  Deuteronomy,  which  belongs  to  a  later 
time,  restricts  worship  to  one  sanctuary,  whose  priests 
consequently  rise  to  new  dignity,  while  the  Levites 
previously  ministering  elsewhere  are  now  thrown  out 
of  occupation,  and,  in  the  need  to  which  they  are 
reduced,  special  provision  must  be  made  for  their 
support.  The  fully  developed  ritual  of  Leviticus 
belongs  to  a  period  later  still. 

This  is  about  as  rational  as  though  some  critic 
were  to  deal  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  in  a  similar  manner,  erecting  its  several  arti- 
cles into  distinct  codes,  assigning  them  to  different 
periods  of  the  national  history,  and  inferring  from 
them  that  different  forms  of  government  have  suc- 
cessively prevailed.  The  article  upon  the  Executive 
treats  only  of  a  President  and  Vice-President  as  en- 
trusted with  power,  and  seems  to  represent  a  sort  of 
elective  monarchy  in  which  rude  tribes  summon  one 
of  their  chieftains  to  the  supreme  command.  Then 
the  article  upon  the  Judiciary  places  control  in  a  body 
of  judges,  who  hold  ofhce  during   life  or  good  be- 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH.  73 

havior,  and  thus  represents  a  later  aristocratic  stage. 
And,  finally,  the  article  which  confers  legislative 
authority  upon  Congress  must  have  originated  at  a 
still  later  date,  when  popular  ideas  came  into  vogue, 
and  the  government  was  lodged  with  representatives 
elected  by  the  people.  This  method  of  treating  a 
system  of  laws,  whose  different  parts  are  mutually 
supplementary,  as  though  they  were  distinct  and  in- 
dependent codes,  can  only  lead  to  distortion  and  mis- 
conception. 

It  is  the  fashion  now  to  ridicule  the  harmonistic 
treatment  of  the  Mosaic  laws,  and  the  development 
theory  is  all  the  rage.  Nevertheless,  every  one  must 
concede  that  if,  upon  any  fair  interpretation  of  their 
language,  these  laws  can  be  shown  to  be  mutually 
consistent  and  harmonious,  this  is  entitled  to  the 
preference  over  any  view  which  represents  them  as 
incompatible  and  conflicting.  And  even  where  the 
law  has  been  changed  in  any  of  its  provisions,  and  a 
later  statute  abrogates  or  modifies  another  given  pre- 
viously, this  may  still  be  consistent  with  the  Mosaic 
record,  provided  it  admits  of  a  satisfactory  explana- 
tion from  the  different  times  and  circumstances  under 
which  the  law  was  given,  and  the  different  ends  which 
it  was  intended  to  subserve.  Unless  variations  should 
be  found  which  it  is  impossible  to  account  for  in 
any  other  way,  it  is  gratuitous  and  unwarrantable  to 
assume  that  any  of  the  laws  ascribed  to  Moses  are 
really  of  later  date. 

To  prove  that  a  plurality  of  sanctuaries  is  pre- 
supposed  in  the  first  legislation,  appeal  is  made  to 


74  PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

Ex.  XX,  24,  25  and  to  xxii.  30.  The  former  of  these 
passages  can  only  afford  an  argument  by  putting  a 
sense  upon  it  which  the  words  do  not  require,  which 
is  at  variance  with  every  other  utterance  of  Hebrew 
law  upon  the  subject,  and  which  disregards  the  cir- 
cumstances under  which  these  words  were  spoken. 
It  is  the  primary  law  of  the  Hebrew  altar,  given  at 
Sinai,  before  the  Tabernacle  was  built,  as  preliminary 
to  concluding  the  covenant  between  Jehovah  and 
Israel  (Ex.  xxiv.  4).  It  directs  the  erection  of  an 
altar  of  earth  or  stone,  and  promises  God's  presence 
and  blessing,  not  wherever  they  might  choose  to  erect 
such  an  altar,  but  in  every  place  ^  where  God  should 
record  His  name,  that  is,  make  a  manifestation  of  His 
being.  (Compare  Deut.  xii.  5,  etc.)  This  was  their 
warrant  for  building  an  altar  at  Sinai,  where  He  had 
so  conspicuously  manifested  Himself,  and  at  every 
future  place  of  supernatural  revelation,  including  the 
Tabernacle  which  they  carried  with  them  in  their 
journeyings  through  the  wilderness ;  for  the  wooden 
frame  described  Ex.  xxvii.  i  ff.  took  its  name  from 
the  altar  of  earth  which  it  enclosed.  It  is  not  co- 
existing sanctuaries  in  Canaan,  but  altars  successively 
reared  at  different  places  in  the  Wilderness,  that  are 
contemplated  by  the  passage  under  consideration. 
Unless  it  can  be  shown  that  God  "  recorded  His 
name  "  in  various  places  at  once,  no  sanction  is  here 
given  to   a   multiplicity  of  altars.     It  was  so  even  in 

1  The  plural  form  in  the  authorized  version  (Ex.  xx.  24)  "in  all 
places,"  whicli  might  seem  to  lend  some  color  to  plurality  of  sanc- 
tuaries, does  not  accurately  represent  the  Hebrew. 


ON  THE   PENTATEUCH.  75 

patriarchal  days,  in  the  Holy  Land  itself.  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob  built  altars  and  offered  sacrifices 
at  their  successive  places  of  abode ;  but  they  did 
not  establish  rival  sanctuaries  to  be  simultaneously 
occupied. 

And  Ex.  xxii.  30  is  quite  as  little  to  the  purpose : 
the  firstling  of  ox  or  sheep  "  shall  be  seven  days  with 
his  dam ;  on  the  eighth  day  thou  shalt  give  it  Me." 
This  is  commonly  understood  to  mean  that  it  was 
sufficiently  mature  for  sacrifice  by  its  eighth  day 
(Lev.  xxii.  27).  Its  presentation  at  the  Sanctuary, 
though  admissible  on  that  day,  may  have  been  post- 
poned to  one  of  the  annual  feasts,  perhaps  the  Pass- 
over, with  which  it  is  associated  in  Ex.  xxxiv.  1 8-20, 
which  is  universally  admitted  to  belong  to  the  most 
ancient  legislation.  The  law  before  us  will  then  be 
substantially  identical  with  that  in  Deut.  xv.  20,  which 
enjoins  that  it  should  be  eaten  at  the  Sanctuary  year 
by  year.  If,  however,  this  very  natural  explanation 
be  rejected,  and  it  be  insisted  that  the  first  legisla- 
tion differs  from  Deuteronomy  in  requiring  that  the 
firstling  should  be  sacrificed  on  its  eighth  day,  still 
there  is  no  need  of  supposing  a  reference  to  local 
sanctuaries  in  Palestine,  accessible  to  every  neigh- 
borhood. The  law  was  given  at  Sinai,  and  regulated 
the  presentation  of  the  first-born  in  the  wilderness, 
where  all  Israel  was  encamped  in  the  vicinity  of  the 
Tabernacle.  When  they  were  about  to  enter  Canaan 
the  old  law  was  replaced  by  one  in  Deuteronomy, 
adapted  to  the  changed  circumstances.  And  while 
there  is  nothing  in   the    first  legislation    implying  a 


76  PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

plurality  of  sanctuaries,  the  three  annual  pilgrimages 
enjoined  to  "the  House  of  the  Lord"  (Ex.  xxiii.  17, 
19),  on  the  contrary,  very  decidedly  imply  its  unity.^ 
It  is  further  charged  that  there  is  a  serious  discrep- 
ancy between  Deuteronomy  and  the  Levitical  Law  in 
respect  to  the  priesthood :  that  according  to  the 
former  all  Levites  are  priests,  and  have  an  equal  right 
to  perform  priestly  functions  and  share  the  priestl}^ 
revenues  (pp.  360,  436),  w^hile  in  the  latter  none  are 
priests  but  Aaron  and  his  sons,  and  the  Levites  are 
servants  or  attendants  upon  the  priests.  All  that  is 
plausible  in  this  representation  arises  from  the  as- 
sumption that  Deuteronomy  is  a  body  of  laws  com- 
plete in  itself;  whereas  it  is  really  attached  to  and 
co-ordinated  with  the  legislation  of  the  preceding 
books.  The  mutual  relations  of  priests  and  Levites 
and  the  special  functions  of  each  are  developed  at 
length  in  the  Levitical  Law,  which  made  it  unneces- 
sary to  repeat  the  same  things  in  Deuteronomy.  Prof. 
W.  R.  Smith  freely  concedes  the  difference  in  sub- 
ject and  aim  between  these  two  bodies  of  legislation.^ 

1  The  allegation  that  "  the  asylum  for  the  man-slayer,  in  Ex.  xxi. 
12-14,  is  Jehovah's  altar,"  whereas  "under  the  law  of  Deuteronomy, 
there  are  to  be  three  fixed  Cities  of  Refuge,"  can  hardly  be  seriously 
meant  in  the  face  of  the  distinct  reference  to  the  future  appointment 
of  Cities  of  Refuge  in  the  passage  in  Exodus. 

2  "  The  first  legislation  and  the  code  of  Deuteronomy  take  the  land 
of  Canaan  as  their  basis.  They  give  directions  for  the  life  of  Jeho- 
vah's people  in  the  land  He  gives  them.  The  Levitical  legislation 
starts  from  the  Sanctuary  and  the  priesthood.  Its  object  is  to  develop 
the  theory  of  a  religious  life  which  has  its  centre  in  the  Sanctuary,  and 
is  ruled  by  principles  of  holiness  radiating  forth  from  Jehovah's  dwel- 
ling-place.    The  first  two  legislations  deal  with  Israel  as  a  nation ;  in 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH.  77 

All  that  specially  relates  to  the  ordinances  of  worship 
and  the  ministers  of  religion  finds  its  place  in  the 
former  rather  than  in  the  latter. 

In  matters  of  this  description  Deuteronomy  makes 
explicit-reference  to  pre-existing  laws.  In  xxiv.  8,  9 
there  is  direct  allusion  to  the  Law  of  Leprosy  previously 
given  (Lev.  xiii.,  xiv.),  with  an  injunction  to  obey  it, 
and  mention  of  the  case  of  Miriam  which  had  arisen 
under  it  (Num.  xii.).  The  introductory  portion  of 
Deuteronomy  is  filled  with  arguments  and  earnest 
exhortations  based  upon  the  antecedent  history  of 
Israel,  which  find  their  only  illustration  in  the  pre- 
ceding books.  Deut.  x.  8,  9;  xviii.  1,2,  speak  of 
duties  previously  assigned  and  support  allotted  to  the 
tribe  of  Levi,  with  specific  reference  in  each  case  to 
former  declarations  on  the  subject,  and  a  verbal  quo- 
tation from  Num.  xviii.  20,  the  context  of  which 
clearly  defines  the  relative  status  of  priests  and  Le- 
vites.  Deut.  xi.  6  appeals  to  the  overthrow  of  Dathan 
and  Abiram  (Num.  xvi.),  which  the  critics  have  not 
yet  succeeded  in  disentangling  from  the  uprising  of 
the  Levite  Korah  against  the  special  prerogatives  of 
the  Aaronic  priesthood.  The  removal  (Deut.  xii.  15) 
of  the  restriction  requiring  every  animal  slain  for 
food  to  be  presented  at  the  Sanctuary,  is  a  plain 
allusion  to  the  law  (Lev.  xvii.  3  fif.)  which  could  only 
have  been  enacted  in  the  Wilderness,  as  its  very  terms 
imply,  and  was  an  important  safeguard  against  idolatry 

the  third,  Israel  is  a  church,  and  as  such  is  habitually  addressed  as  a 
Congregation  {'edah),  a  word  characteristic  of  the  Levitical  Law" 
(•P-3I8). 


78  PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

as  the  people  were  then  situated.  It  was  obviously 
impracticable  in  Canaan,^  however,  and  is  therefore 
formally  abrogated  before  their  entrance  into  the 
promised  land.  The  blessing  of  Levi  (Deut.  xxxiii. 
8-1 1 )  abounds  in  allusions  to  the  preceding  history 
and  enactments.  Deuteronomy  thus,  by  its  o\vn  ex- 
press statements,  recognizes  the  existence  and  binding 
authority  of  a  more  detailed  antecedent  legislation 
respecting  matters  to  which  it  only  alludes  in  a  brief 
and  summary  manner. 

It  is  to  be  observed  further  that  Deuteronomy  does 
distinguish  between  priests  and  Levites.  In  xviii.  I 
'^  all  the  tribe  of  Levi  "  is  a  superfluous  addition  to 
the  standing  phrase,  "  the  priests  the  Levites,"  if  it  is 
simply  co-extensive  in  signification.  (Compare  Neh. 
xi.  20:  "  Israel,  the  priests,  the  Levites.")  The  in- 
tention manifestly  is  to  affirm,  both  of  the  priests  and 
of  the  entire  tribe  to  which  they  belong,  that  they  are 
without  inheritance.  Accordingly  in  the  following 
verses  statements  are  made  respecting  first  the  priest 
(vers.  3-5),  then  the  Levite  (vers.  6-8).  And  through- 
out the  entire  book,  wherever  priests  are  spoken  of, 
the  functions  ascribed  to  them  are  either  those  as- 
signed to  the  priests  in  the  Levitical  Law,  or  are  en- 
tirely consistent  with  them ;    while  on  the  contrary, 

1  Even  the  local  sanctuaries,  by  which  the  Professor  seeks  to  ac- 
count for  it,  would  not  render  it  tolerable.  And  a  plurality  of  sanc- 
tuaries is  inconsistent  with  the  express  requirement  of  the  law  in 
question  (Lev,  xvii.  4,  5),  which  recognizes  but  one  sanctuary,  "the 
Tabernacle  of  the  Congregation,"  and  places  offering  sacrifices  there  in 
contrast  with  offering  them  elsewhere.  If  the  unity  of  the  Sanctuary 
is  insisted  upon  anywhere  in  the  Levitical  Law,  this  is  the  case  here. 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH.  79 

the  Levlte  is  in  repeated  passages  (<?.  g.,  xiv.  29) 
associated  with  needy  or  dependent  classes  as  Hke 
them  an  object  of  generous  beneficence.  The  dis- 
tinction between  Levitical  priests  and  Levites  gener- 
ally is  also  made  in  xxvii.  9,  12,  14.  The  priests  of 
this  book,  as  all  admit,  are  those  of  the  tribe  of  Levi 
who  discharge  priestly  functions,  and  are  distinguished 
from  those  Levites  who  do  not.  But  who  in  the  tribe 
are  privileged  to  be  priests?  Deut.  x.  6  tells  us  that 
Aaron  was  priest,  and  his  son  succeeded  him.  The 
Levitical  Law  declares  that  the  priesthood  was  limited 
to  Aaron's  family.  The  critics  infer  from  Deut.  xviii. 
6  that  any  Levite,  who  is  disposed  to  do  so,  may  be- 
come a  priest  by  presenting  himself  at  the  Sanctuary 
and  claiming  the  right  to  exercise  priestly  functions. 
We  think  it  more  reasonable  to  understand  the  verse 
in  a  manner  which  is  equally  consistent  with  its  lan- 
guage, and  is  moreover  in  harmony  v.ith  the  Levitical 
Law,  viz :  that  any  Levite,  whether  belonging  to  the 
seed  of  Aaron  or  not,  is  privileged  to  go  to  the 
Sanctuary  and  perform  such  ministrations  as  are  al- 
lowed to  Levites  of  the  same  grade ;  if  of  priestly 
stock,  he  may  act  as  priest;  if  not,  he  may  per- 
form those  subordinate  offices  which  are  allowed  to 
Levites.^ 

The  characteristic  expression  for  the  priests  in  the 
Book  of  Deuteronomy  is  "  the  priests  the  Levites," 
or  rather,  as  the  words  should  be  rendered,  "  the  Le- 
vitical priests"   (xvii.  9,  18,  xviii.    i,  xxiv.  8,  xxvii. 

1  Ministering  to  the  Lord  was  a  function  of  the  Levites  as  well  as 
the  priests  (i.  Chron.  xv.  2;   see  also  i.  Sam.  ii.  11,  18,  iii.  i). 


8o  PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

9).  In  Leviticus  and  Numbers  this  phrase  is  never 
employed,  but  we  find  instead  ''  the  priests,  the  sons 
of  Aaron"  (Lev.  i.  5,  8,  11,  ii.  2,  iii.  2,  xiii.  2, 
xxi.  i;  Num.  iii.  3,  x.  8).  This  striking  difference, 
however,  involves  no  real  discrepancy,  for  the  sons  of 
Aaron  were  of  course  Levites  ;  and  "  Levitical  priests  " 
no  more  proves  that  priests  and  Levites  are  convert- 
ible terms  than  "  Egyptian  priests"  would  imply  that 
all  Egyptians  were  or,  if  they  chose,  might  be  priests. 
This  expression  is,  moreover,  found  in  books  where 
the  distinctions  of  the  Levitical  Law  are  plainly  re- 
cognized.^ The  occurrence  in  the  preceding  books  of 
the  Pentateuch  of  the  expression  "  the  priests  the 
sons  of  Aaron,"  along  with  such  phrases  as  "  Aaron 
the  priest,"  "  the  sons  of  Aaron  the  priest,"  "  Eleazar 
the  priest,"  etc.,  is  altogether  natural,  because  these 
were  the  persons  who  filled  the  office  at  the  time,  and 
to  whom  the  divine  directions  were  immediately  given  ; 
just  as  we  read  in  latec  times  of  ''  Eli  the  priest,"  *'  the 
sons  of  Eli  the  priest,"  etc.  (i.  Sam.  i.  3,  9),  when 
these  are  the  persons  intended.  In  Deuteronomy, 
however,  which  gives  no  personal  directions  to  indi- 
viduals, but  contemplates  the  priests  of  the  future  as 
a  body,  a  general  designation,  such  as  Levitical  priests, 
was  more  appropriate.^ 

1  Thus  Josh.  iii.  3,  viii.  33  (compare  xxi.  4  ff.,  "the  children  of 
Aaron  the  priest  which  were  of  the  Levites ") ;  also  ii.  Chron.  v.  5 
(where  the  Professor  accepts  the  reading,  "the  Levite  priests,"  in  pref- 
erence to  that  in  the  parallel  passage,  i.  Kings  viii.  4,  "the  priests  and 
the  Levites,"  p.  436),  xxiii.  18,  xxx.  27,  where  the  sense  plainly  shows 
the  insertion  of  "  and  "  to  be  inadmissible. 

2  That  there  is  nothing  in  this  phraseology  to  warrant  the  conclu- 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH.  8 1 

That  priestly  functions  should  be  attributed  to  the 

sions  which  the  critics  would  have  us  draw  from  it,  is  apparent  from  a 
simple  inspection  of  the  facts  of  the  case.  In  the  Book  of  Leviticus 
"  priest "  occurs  without  any  qualifying  epithet  or  any  name  in  appo- 
sition with  it  176  times,  the  plural  "  priests"  four  times,  and  "  high 
priest  "  once.  In  Lev.  viii.-x.,  the  consecration  of  Aaron  and  his  sons, 
and  the  penalty  inflicted  upon  Nadab  and  Abihu  for  their  transgres- 
sion, "priest  "  does  not  occur,  but  we  find  instead  "  Aaron  "  fourteen 
times,  "  Aaron's  sons  "  seven  times,  *'  Aaron  and  his  sons  "  thirteen 
times,  evidently  for  the  reason  that  these  are  the  persons  whom  the 
narrative  concerns.  In  Lev.  xvi.,  the  institution  of  the  Day  of  Atone- 
ment, after  an  allusion  to  the  death  of  Aaron's  two  sons,  Aaron  is 
mentioned  eight  times  as  the  person  charged  with  conducting  the  ser- 
vices of  the  day.  It  is  only  at  tlie  close  of  the  chapter,  ver.  32,  that 
"  the  priest  who  shall  be  anointed,  and  shall  be  consecrated  to  minis- 
ter in  the  priest's  office  in  his  father's  stead,"  is  spoken  of  as  the  fu- 
ture celebrant.  In  Ex.  xxvii.-xxxi.  we  read  constantly  of  "  Aaron  "  (fif- 
teen times),  "  Aaron's  sons  "  (twice),  or  "  Aaron  and  his  sons  "  (twenty- 
two  times) ;  "  Aaron  and  his  sons  shall  order  the  lamp,"  "  holy  gai-ments 
for  Aaron  and  his  sons,"  "Aaron  shall  bear  the  names  of  the  children 
of  Israel,"  etc. ;  only  once  "  Aaron  the  priest,"  xxxi.  10,  and  once  "  that 
son  that  is  priest  in  his  stead,"  xxix.  30.  In  Lev.  i.-vii.  "  Aaron  and  his 
sons"  (ten  times)  and  "Aaron's  sons"  (six  times)  interchange  with 
"the  priest,"  the  writer  passing  readily  and  naturally  from  the  names 
of  those  who  held  the  office  to  the  term  descriptive  of  the  office  itself. 
It  would  not  have  been  surprising  if  he  had  combined  the  name  and 
the  office  more  frequently  than  he  has  done  ;  but  the  fact  is,  that  in 
the  entire  Book  of  Leviticus  "  Aaron  the  priest "  occurs  but  three 
times,  "  the  priests  Aaron's  sons  "  five  times,  "  the  sons  of  Aaron  the 
priest"  once,  and  "his  sons"  (meaning  Aaron's)  joined  with  "priest" 
or  "  priests  "  twice.  The  form  of  expression  is  evidently  governed  by 
the  fact  that  the  persons  then  composing  the  priestly  order  were  pres- 
ent to  the  writer's  thoughts.  And  laws  drawn  up  in  this  form  thereby 
give  evidence  that  they  were  both  enacted  and  committed  to  writing 
in  the  lifetime  of  Aaron  and  his  sons. 

In  the  Deuteronomic  code  "priest  "  or  "priests  "  with  no  qualify- 
ing epithet  occurs  seven  times ;  and  "  the  priests  the  Levites  "  (or  "  the 
sons  of  Levi  ")  five  times,  or  (if  we  include  xxvii.  9  and  xxxi.  9,  which 
are  outside  of  the  code  proper  as  defined  above)  seven  times  in  the 


82  PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

tribe  of  Levi  ^  (x.  8,  xxxiii.  8,  lo),  because  they  were 
entrusted  to  a  particular  family  in  that  tribe,  is  by  the 

entire  book.  In  Moses'  final  address,  which  looks  forward  over  the 
entire  future  of  Israel,  it  would  have  been  out  of  place  to  speak  of  the 
individual  priests  then  living.  Why  should  he  say  Eleazar  or  Itha- 
mar  or  Phinehas  the  priest,  when  the  priestly  order  for  all  time  was 
meant .?  and  he  could  not  say  Aaron  the  priest,  for  Aaron  was  already 
dead.  What  was  more  natural  under  the  circumstances  than  that  the 
priests  should  simply  be  referred  to  the  sacred  tribe  to  which  they  be- 
longed ?  There  is  nothing  here  that  requires  for  its  explanation  the 
peculiarities  of  a  distinct  writer,  nor  a  change  in  the  constitution  of 
the  priesthood.  The  character  of  the  address  of  Moses,  and  the  cir- 
cumstances under  which  it  was  delivered,  amply  account  for  the  differ- 
ence between  the  language  used  in  it  and  in  Leviticus.  If  the  late 
Emperor  of  the  French,  in  his  attempt  to  reorganize  the  Mexican 
government  by  placing  the  Archduke  of  Austria  upon  the  throne,  had 
drawn  up  a  paper  for  his  personal  guidance,  in  which  he  was  through- 
out spoken  of  as  "  Maximilian  "  and  "  a  descendant  of  Charles  V.," 
and  in  his  convention  with  Mexico  upon  the  subject  had  simply  styled 
him  "the  Emperor  of  Mexico,"  without  adding  his  personal  name, 
what  would  there  be  in  this  difference  of  designation  to  cast  suspicion 
upon  the  authenticity  of  either  document,  or  to  warrant  the  inference 
that  they  belong  to  different  periods  of  time  t 

1  The  Professor  is  mistaken  in  saying  (p.  437)  that  according  to 
"  Deut.  xviii.  i  seq.  the  whole  tribe  of  Levi  has  a  claim  on  the  altar 
gifts,  the  first  fruits,  and  other  priestly  offerings."  This  belongs  to 
the  priests,  as  explicitly  appears  from  vers.  3-5 ;  the  Levites  have  a 
share  in  the  Lord's  inheritance  (ver.  i).  What  this  embraces  is  not 
defined  here,  but  is  assumed  as  known  from  the  Levitical  Law.  When 
the  Lord  promises  to  be  their  inheritance.  He  surely  does  not  design 
that  the  only  subsistence  of  the  entire  tribe,  except  those  who  were  on 
duty  at  the  Sanctuary,  should  be  such  occasional  invitations  as  they 
might  receive  to  religious  festivals  (Deut.  xvi.  14,  xxvi.  11,  12),  This 
necessarily  implies  the  Levitical  tithe,  of  which  the  Professor  says 
"  Deuteronomy  knows  nothing ;  "  and  "  the  patrimony  "  referred  to  in 
ver.  8  implies  the  Levitical  cities,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  at  the 
date  to  which  he  has  seen  fit  to  assign  Deuteronomy  they  "lay  outside 
the  kingdom  of  Judah."  The  list  given  of  these  cities  in  Josh,  xxi., 
the  Professor  tells  us.  is  "  really  part  of  the  Levitical  Law,"  which  on 


ON   THE  PENTATEUCH.  8^ 

o 

same  familiar  use  of  language  as,  in  Gen.  xlix.  lo, 
the  sceptre  is  ascribed  to  Judah  because  wielded  by 
the  royal  line  of  David ;  or  as  we  might  speak  of  the 
house  of  Hanover  as  reigning  in  England  because  a 
member  of  that  family  is  seated  on  the  throne  ;  or  of  the 
American  troops  at  the  siege  of  Yorktown,  without 
naming  the  particular  colonies  which  were  represented 
there. 

"  The  increased  provision  for  the  priesthood," 
which,  we  are  told  (p.  440)  is  "  one  of  the  chief 
innovations  of  the  Ritual  Law,"  is  a  sheer  creation  of 
the  critics.  If  by  one  section  of  a  law  a  given  offi- 
cer is  allowed  certain  fees  for  specific  services,  and 
another  section  assigns  him  a  regular  salary,  critics 
of  the  modern  school  would  infer  that  these  sections 
are  separate  laws  which  were  in  operation  at  dififer- 

his  theory  is  post-exilic;  only  he  does  not  explain  the  puzzle  that 
thirty-five  cities  are  assigned  to  the  Levites,  and  but  thirteen  to  the 
priests,  though,  as  he  informs  us  in  another  place  (p.  383),  "on  the  re- 
turn from  captivity  very  few  Levites  in  comparison  with  the  full  priests 
cared  to  attach  themselves  to  the  Temple  (Neh.  vii.  39,  seq.)P  That 
Gezer,  though  assigned  to  the  Levites,  was  not  conquered  till  the  time 
of  Solomon  (p.  441),  only  shows  what  appears  equally  from  other 
cases,  that  the  entire  land  was  divided  among  the  tribes  before  all  of 
it  had  been  wrested  from  the  Canaanites.  That  citizens  of  other  tribes 
were  joint  occupants  of  some  of  these  cities  with  the  Levites,  merely 
proves  that  the  latter  were  not  numerous  enough  to  fill  all  the  places 
allotted  to  them.  That  Abiathar  could  own  a  field  in  Anathoth,  and 
Jeremiah  buy  one,  is  no  infraction  of  law  (p.  428),  whether  a  plot  of 
ground  in  the  city  is  meant  (Lev.  xxv.  33),  or  a  field  in  the  suburbs, 
which  could  not  indeed  be  sold  so  as  to  be  even  temporarily  alienated 
from  the  tribe  (ver.  34),  but  may,  for  all  that  we  know,  have  been  to 
a  greater  or  less  extent  parcelled  amongst  individual  owners,  as  was 
the  case  in  the  priestly  city  of  Beth-shemesh,  i.  Sam.  vi.  14,  18;  Josh. 
xxi.  16. 


84  PROF.   ROBERTSON  SMITH 

ent  periods,  and  that  the  latter  belongs  to  a  time 
when  these  officials  were  more  generously  dealt  with 
than  they  had  been  previously.  The  proper  legal 
provision  for  the  priests  and  Levites  is  fully  stated  in 
the  Levitical  Law.  Deuteronomy  does  not  deal 
with  this  subject  in  any  professed  or  formal  way;  it 
only  incidentally  makes  mention  of  certain  perqui- 
sites which  they  should  receive,  or  attentions  which 
should   be  shown  them.^     And   he  who  can  find   a 

1  It  is  not  surprising  if  we  find  it  difficult  to  adjust  some  of  the  par- 
ticulars in  a  system  of  legislation  belonging  to  so  remote  a  perio*d,  and 
to  a  state  of  things  so  different  from  our  own.  Jurists  are  sometimes 
in  doubt  as  to  the  precise  meaning  of  legislators  in  modern  times ;  but 
in  such  cases  they  never  admit  a  discrepancy  if  there  is  any  rational 
way  of  avoiding  it.  If  critics  would  adopt  the  same  rule,  which  is  a 
simple  dictate  of  common  sense,  they  would  find  fewer  perplexities. 
In  Num.  xviii.  i8  the  flesh  of  the  firstlings  is  the  priests';  in  Deut. xv. 
19,  20  the  offerer  is  to  eat  it  before  the  Lord  with  his  household,  "the 
priest  of  course  receiving,"  as  the  Professor  correctly  suggests,  "  the 
usual  share  of  each  victim."  In  this  class  of  victims  the  priest  re- 
ceived the  whole ;  but  why  might  he  not  return  to  the  offerer  all  that 
was  needed  for  his  sacrificial  meal .''  The  direction  to  the  offerer  to 
hold  such  a  festival  is  an  injunction  to  the  priests  to  supply  him  with 
what  was  requisite  for  the  purpose.  There  is  a  difference,  however, 
which,  in  the  Professor's  judgment,  "cannot  be  explained  away,  for 
according  to  Deut.  xiv.  24  the  firstlings  might  be  turned  into  money, 
and  materials  of  a  feast  bought  with  them  ;  but  in  Num.  xviii.  17,  it 
is  forbidden  to  redeem  any  firstlings  fit  for  sacrifice."  But  the  thing 
prohibited  and  the  thing  allowed  are  quite  distinct.  The  owner  would 
"  redeem  "  his  firstling  if  he  paid  an  estimated  sum  and  retained  the 
animal  himself ;  this  might  be  a  temptation  to  cupidity,  to  cheapen  the 
estimate,  and  thus  pay  an  inadequate  sum.  But  where  the  distance  from 
the  Sanctuary  was  so  great  as  to  make  literal  transportation  of  the  ani- 
mal thither  impossible  or  onerous,  its  alienation  by  an  honest  sale  freed 
the  owner  from  any  selfish  temptation,  and  the  consecration  of  its  equiva- 
lent in  money  fulfilled  the  spirit  of  the  statute.  The  alleged  discrep- 
ancy in  tithes  is  removed  by  observing  that  the  tithe  spoken  of  in 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH.  85 

discrepancy  in  this,  must  have  a  very  keen  critical 
sense. 

But  it  is  alleged  that  there  are  no  traces  of  the  Pen- 
tateuchal  Law  in  the  historical  and  other  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  until  ages  after  the  death  of  Moses ; 
and  that  both  the  facts  of  the  history  and  the  state- 
ments of  the  sacred  writers  are  inconsistent  with  the 
existence  of  Deuteronomy  before  Josiah,  or  the  Levit- 
ical  Law  before  Ezra.  Of  course  if  this  is  so,  the 
Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Law  must  be  abandoned ; 
but,  on  the  other  hand,  if  that  Law  is  distinctly  trace- 
able through  all  the  post-Mosaic  history  and  writings,, 
its  genuineness  is  completely  vindicated. 

How,  then,  stands  the  evidence?  The  Professor 
begins  his  investigation  by  summarily  ruling  out  two 

Deuteronomy  is  quite  distinct  from  that  in  Leviticus  and  Numbers.  It 
was  additional  to  it,  and  was  appropriated  to  a  different  purpose.  The 
Jews  paid  both  tithes,  as  there  is  abundant  evidence ;  a  burden  to 
which  they  would  not  have  submitted,  if  this  had  not  been  believed 
to  be  the  meaning  of  the  law,  whether  it  was  enacted  after  the  Exile 
or  was  ordained  by  Moses.  "  The  priest's  share  of  a  sacrifice  in 
Deuteronomy  consists  of  inferior  parts."  But  this,  so  far  from  con- 
flicting with  the  more  ample  provision  made  for  them  in  the  Levitical 
Law,  necessarily  implies  the  existence  of  that  provision.  The  dis- 
tinguished position  assigned  to  priests  in  Deuteronomy,  as  the  Lord's 
ministers  and  the  highest  judicial  authority  in  the  land,  forbids  the 
idea  that  a  miserable  pittance  was  doled  out  for  their  support.  The 
perquisite  in  Deut.  xviii.  3  is  a  special  allowance  from  every  animal 
slain  for  sacred  purposes  ;  the  phrase  rendered  "  offer  a  sacrifice  "  has 
a  broader  meaning  than  the  regular  sacrifices  properly  so  called,  and 
has  even  been  supposed  by  some  to  embrace  all  animals  slain  for  food. 
It  is  probably  intended  to  indemnify  the  priests  for  the  change  made 
(Deut.  xii.  15)  in  the  Law  of  Sacrifice,  as  a  substitute  for  what  they  re- 
ceived as  their  due  when  no  animal  was  allowed  to  be  slain  even  for 
domestic  purposes  elsewhere  than  at  the  Sanctuary. 


86  PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

important  witnesses  (p.  218)  :  **  I  exclude  the  Book 
of  Joshua,  because  it,  in  all  its  parts,  hangs  closely 
together  with  the  Pentateuch."  It  is  our  only  source 
of  information  respecting  the  period  immediately 
succeeding  the  life  of  Moses;  but,  as  it  carries 
the  *'  legal  fiction  "  through  another  generation,  it  is 
untrustworthy  and  must  be  abandoned.  '*And,  on 
the  other  hand,  I  exclude  for  the  present  the  narra- 
tive of  Chronicles,  which  was  written  long  after  the 
reformation  of  Ezra,  and  has  not  the  character  of  a 
primary  source  for  the  earlier  history."  It  claims  to 
be  based  on  early  contemporary  records,  which  Prof. 
Robertson  Smith  admits  to  be  the  case  with  ''  the 
historical  books  from  Judges  to  Kings."  It  names  its 
sources,  which  were  still  accessible  to  its  readers, 
and  appeals  to  them  in  verification  of  its  statements ; 
so  that  its  acceptance  under  these  circumstances  as 
a  reliable  history,  and  especially  its  admission  to  the 
canon,  assure  us  that  there  has  been  no  tampering 
with  the  facts.  Chronicles,  written  after  the  Exile, 
when  the  people  were  zealously  engaged  in  restoring 
the  institutions  of  their  fathers,  concerns  itself  largely 
with  the  history  of  worship.  Samuel  and  Kings, 
though  covering  the  same  period  of  the  history, 
were  written  with  a  different  aim,  and  omit  much 
upon  this  subject  which  Chronicles  records.  Does 
the  silence  of  the  former  outweigh  the  positive  decla- 
rations of  the  latter,  and  justify  their  being  set  aside 
as  pure  invention  or  as  Levitical  sermonizing  ^  (p. 
420)  ? 

1  We  cannot  here  turn  aside  to  answer  the  specific  objections  made 
to  the  truth  and  reHability  of  Chronicles  further  than  to  say  that  they 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH.  87 

However,  let  Joshua  and  Chronicles  be  excluded ; 
what  is  the  testimony  of  the  remaining  books?  And 
first  let  us  inquire  respecting  the  period  immediately- 
succeeding  Joshua  —  that  of  the  Judges.  In  Judg. 
xix.  18  the  Levite  says,  ''  I  am  going,"  not  to  one 
of  the  houses  of  the  Lord,  but  *'  to  the  House  of  the 
Lord,"  as  if  he  knew  of  but  one ;  and  this  was  near 
his  residence  "  in  the  recesses  of  Mount  Ephraim." 
From  xviii.  3 1  we  learn  more  definitely  that  ''  the 
House  of  God  was  in  Shiloh,"  where  "  the  Tabernacle 
of  the  Congregation  "  had  been  set  up  in  the  time  of 
Joshua  (Josh,  xviii.  i,  xix.  51),  and  where  it  had  ac- 
cordingly continued  since.  It  is  not  here  stated  with 
exactness  how  much  longer  it  remained  there,  —  other 
passages  give  information  upon  this  point,  —  but  that 
it  was  a  considerable  period,  appears  from  its  meas- 
uring the  duration  of  the  worship  of  Micah's  graven 
image  in  Dan.     '*  The  Feast  of  the  Lord  "  ^  was  also 

all  rest  on  the  unproved  assumption  that  the  only  sources  accessible  to 
the  writer  were  the  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings  ;  so  that  everything 
additional  to  or  varying  from  their  statements  falls  under  the  suspi- 
cion of  being  inference,  conjecture,  or  pure  invention. 

1  Interpreters  have  not  been  agreed  whether  this  was  the  Passover 
or  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles.  Prof.  W.  R.  Smith  says  of  it  (p.  257)  : 
"This  appears  to  have  been  a  vintage  feast,  like  the  Pentateuchal 
Feast  of  Tabernacles,  for  it  was  accompanied  by  dancers  in  the  vine- 
yards (Judg.  xxi,  21) ;  and,  according  to  the  correct  rendering  of  i.  Sam. 
i.  20,  21,  it  took  place  when  the  new  year  came  in,  that  is,  at  the  close 
of  the  agricultural  year,  which  ended  with  the  ingathering  of  the  vint- 
age (Ex.  xxxiv.  22)."  If  the  considerations  which  he  adduces  have  any 
force,  it  was  so  very  "  like  the  Pentateuchal  feast  "  as  to  be  identical 
with  it.  The  characteristic  expression  borrowed  from  Ex.  xxxiv.  22 
implies  acquaintance  with  that  law  of  the  three  Mosaic  festivals,  and 
makes  it  strange  that  the  Professor  should  say,  in  the  very  same  para- 


8S  PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

annually  observed  in  Shiloh  (xxi.  19).  The  people 
came  to  the  Ark  to  inquire  of  the  LORD  (Judg.  xx.  27  ; 
compare  Ex.  xxv.  22).  This  most  sacred  article  of 
the  Mosaic  Tabernacle  (Ex.  xxv.  10  ff.)  is  called 
by  its  ancient  name  *'  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant " 
(Num.  x.  33,  xiv.  44),  implying  that  it  contained  the 
Tables  of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  xxxiv.  28),  as  Moses 
had  directed  (Ex.  xxv.  21;  Deut.  x.  1-5).  It  had 
been  taken  to  Bethel  (wrongly  translated  "  the  House 
of  God,"  Judg.  XX.  18,  26,  31,  xxi.  2),  temporarily 
as  appears  from  xx.  2^] ^  that  it  might  be  near  the 
scene  of  conflict  at  Gibeah  (ver.  31),  as  was  done  in 
later  times  in  the  battle  with  the  Philistines  (i.  Sam. 

graph,  that  Shiloh  was  visited  "  not  three  times  a  year  according  to  the 
Pentateuchal  Law,  but  at  an  annual  feast."  Especially  as  on  a  subse- 
quent page  (341)  he  affirms  in  evidence  of  the  existence  and  opera- 
tion of  the  first  legislation  at  this  very  time  :  "  The  annual  feasts  —  at 
least  that  of  the  autumn,  which  seems  to  have  been  best  observed  — 
are  often  alluded  to.  .  .  .  The  proof  that  this  law  was  known  and 
acknowledged  in  all  its  leading  provisions  is  as  complete  as  the  proof 
that  the  Levitical  Law  was  still  unheard  of."  We  think  it  is  a  great 
deal  more  complete.  But  let  that  pass.  The  first  legislation  enjoins 
the  three  annual  feasts  (Ex.  xxiii.  14  ff.)  as  explicitly  and  emphatically 
as  the  law  of  Deuteronomy  and  Leviticus.  Either  the  three  festivals 
were  observed  at  this  time,  and  then  his  suggestion  of  a  departure  from 
Pentateuchal  Law  is  gratuitous,  or  the  neglect  of  some  of  the  festi- 
vals on  his  own  admission  does  not  disprove  the  existence  of  the  law 
requiring  them.  The  Professor  may  choose  either  alternative.  When 
he  says  of  the  feast  at  Shiloh,  **  It  had  not  a  strictly  national  charac- 
ter, for  in  Judg.  xxi.  19  it  appears  to  be  only  locally  known,  and  to 
have  the  character  of  a  village  festival,"  all  the  seeming  plausibility 
of  his  remark  arises  from  an  inaccuracy  in  the  Authorized  Version. 
"  There  is  a  feast  of  the  Lord  "  should  be  *'  The  feast  of  the  Lord  is," 
etc.  The  idolatrous  parallel  in  Sheckem  (Judg.  ix.  27)  is  nothing  to 
the  purpose. 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH.  89 

iv.  3),  in  the  hope  that  the  words  of  Moses  (Num.  x. 
35)  might  be  verified  in  their  experience.  The  Ark 
was  in  priestly  custody,  as  the  law  required ;  and  the 
priest  who  *'  stood  before  "  it  (Deut.  x.  8)  was  Phine- 
has,  the  son  of  Eleazar,  the  son  of  Aaron.  Sacrifices 
were  freely  offered  in  the  presence  of  the  Ark,  though 
Bethel  was  only  a  provisional  place  of  worship  pro 
hdc  vice  ;  hence  it  was  necessary  to  build  an  altar  for 
the  purpose  (Judg.  xxi.  4),  and  as  soon  as  the  war 
was  ended  the  camp  was  removed  to  Shiloh  (ver. 
I2).i 

The  events  recorded  Judg.  xvii.-xxi.  belong,  as  is 
universally  allowed,  to  the  early  part  of  the  period 

^  The  failure  to  exterminate  the  Canaaiiites,  with  its  natural  result 
of  alliances  with  them  and  the  worship  of  their  gods,  to  which  all  the 
troubles  of  the  period  are  traced  in  the  Book  of  Judges,  was  an  offence 
against  both  the  first  legislation  and  the  Law  of  Deuteronom}',  to  both 
of  which  there  are  many  verbal  allusions.  The  historical  references  are 
also  frequent  (see  particularly  Judg.  xi.  13  ff.).  Technical  expressions 
also  occur,  borrowed  from  the  language  of  the  Law.  The  term  for  the 
"  congregation  "  gathered  for  the  sacred  war  against  Gibeah  (Judg. 
XX.  I,  xxi.  10,  13)  is  the  one  which  Prof.  W.  R.  Smith  tells  us  (p.  318)  is 
•'  characteristic  of  the  Levitical  Law."  Another,  ecjually  characteristic, 
is  rendered  "  lewdness."  (Judg.  xx.  6;  see  Lev.  xviii.  17,  xix.  29,  where 
it  is  translated  "wickedness.")  The  phrase  "put  away  evil  from 
Israel  "  (Judg.  xx.  13)  is  frequent  in  Deuteronomy  and  peculiar  to  it 
(Deut.  xiii.  5,  xvii.  12,  etc.,  etc.),  and  the  punishment  of  Gibeah  for  its 
gross  crime  was  in  obedience  to  Deut.  xiii.  12  ff.  "  Wrought  folly  in 
Israel  "  (Judg.  xx.  6,  10,  xix.  23,  24)  is  from  Deut.  xxii.  21.  Judg.  xxi. 
17  alludes  to  Deut.  xxv.  6,  not  only  in  thought,  but  with  a  verbal  cor- 
respondence that  does  not  appear  in  the  English  Bible;  so  Judg.  x. 
14  to  Deut.  xxxii.  -^i,  38.  The  law  of  the  Nazirite  (Num.  vi.  1-5)  was 
in  force  (Judg.  xiii.  4,  5,  14,  xvi.  17;  i.  Sam.  i.  11)  ;  the  vow  of  irreme- 
diable destruction  (Judg.  i.  17,  xxi.  ii;  compare  Deut.  xx.  17;  Lev. 
xxvii.  29) ;  the  irrevocable  character  of  a  vow  (Judg.  xi.  35,  36 ;  com- 
pare Deut.  xxiii.  21-23.) 


90  PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

of  the  Judges.  And  then,  as  we  have  seen,  there  was 
but  one  House  of  God  and  there  was  an  Aaronic 
priesthood.  The  opening  chapters  of  Samuel  will 
tell  us  how  it  was  at  the  close  of  that  period.  *'  The 
House  of  the  Lord  "  (l.  Sam.  i.  7,  24)  was  still  in 
Shiloh.^  In  it  was  the  lamp  of  God  (iii.  3),  which 
burned  nightly  (Ex.  xxvii.  20;  xxx.  8),  and  the  Ark 
with  its  cherubim  (i  Sam.  iv.  4).     Thither  Elkanah 

1  But  says  Prof.  W.  R.  Smith  (p.  25S) :  "  We  find  glaring  depar- 
tures from  the  very  principles  of  the  Pentatcuchal  Sanctuary.  The  Ark 
stood,  not  in  the  Tabernacle,  but  in  a  temple  with  door-posts  and 
folding-doors,  which  were  thrown  open  during  the  day  (i.  Sam.  i.  9, 
iii.  15).  Access  to  the  temple  was  not  guarded  on  rules  of  Levitical 
sanctity."  And  this  in  the  face  of  ii.  22,  where  the  Shiloh  Sanctuary 
is  called  "  the  Tabernacle  of  the  Congregation,"  identifying  it  with  the 
old  Mosaic  Tent  of  Meeting  (Ex.  xxix.  4),  and  of  ii.  Sam.  vii.  6,  where 
God  says  to  David,  "  I  have  not  dwelt  in  any  house  since  the  time  that 
I  brought  up  the  children  of  Israel  out  of  Egypt,  even  to  this  day,  but 
have  walked  in  a  Tent  and  in  a  tabernacle."  The  Mosaic  Tent  had  been 
the  sole  Sanctuary  throughout  this  entire  period,  until  the  Ark  was 
removed  to  Zion.  During  its  long  abode  at  Shiloh,  more  solid  struc- 
tures would  naturally  be  erected  in  and  about  the  court  for  the  accom- 
modation of  the  resident  priests,  the  reception  of  offerings,  and  other 
purposes  of  convenience,  like  the  chambers  subsequently  in  the  Tem- 
ple (i.  Kings  vi.  5 ;  Jer.  xxxv.  2,  4).  The  doors  and  door-posts  were  no 
doubt  those  of  the  court  or  the  entire  sacred  enclosure.  To  throw 
open  the  innermost  part  of  the  Temple  to  public  view  would  be  an 
inconceivable  profanation,  not  only  to  Israelitish,  but  to  Pagan  ideas. 
Because  Samuel  slept  in  the  Temple  where  the  Ark  of  God  was,  — 
slept,  that  is,  in  one  of  the  chambers  already  adverted  to, — the  Pro- 
fessor seems  to  think  that  he  made  a  bedroom  of  the  Holy  of  Holies. 
If  he  were  told  of  some  servant  who  blacked  boots  in  the  mansion 
where  President  Garfield  lay  sick,  we  suppose  he  would  straightway 
infer  that  this  menial  occupation  was  carried  on  by  the  President's 
bedside.  And  upon  the  basis  of  such  perversions  as  this  he  concludes, 
"  These  things  strike  at  the  root  of  the  Levitical  system  of  access  to 
God." 


ON   THE  PENTATEUCH.  91 

went  up  yearly  to  worship  and  sacrifice  (i.  3). 
Shiloh  was  visited  with  this  view,  not,  as  the  Pro- 
fessor tells  us  (p.  257),  "  by  pilgrims  from  the  sur- 
rounding country  of  Ephraim,"  but  by  all  Israel  (ii. 
14,  22,  29).  This  was  the  one  prescribed  place  of 
sacrifice  (ii.  29).^  Here  there  was  an  Aaronic  priest- 
hood, —  Eli  and  his  sons  (i.  3)  being  descended  from 
Ithamar,  the  son  of  Aaron  (i.  Chron.  xxiv.  3  ;  I.  Sam. 
xxii.  20;  I.  Kin.  ii.  27).  And  this  was  the  only  law- 
ful priesthood;  for  God  says  (l.  Sam.  ii.  27,  28)  of 
his  father  Aaron,  to  whom  He  had  appeared  in 
Egypt,  in  Pharaoh's  house :  *'  I  chose  him  out  of  all 
the  tribes  of  Israel  to  be  My  priest,  to  offer  upon 
Mine  altar,  to  burn  incense,  to  wear  an  ephod  before 
Me ;  and  I  gave  unto  the  house  of  thy  father  all  the 
offerings  made  by  fire  of  the  children  of  Israel." 
And  no  other  priesthood  than  that  of  Aaron  is  recog- 
nized at  any  subsequent  time  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ;  not  a  priest  is  named  who  was  not  descended 
from  Aaron ;  and  no  other  can  be  shown  to  have 
performed  any  priestly  function  at  the  Sanctuary. 
The  position  of  the  Levites  in  the  time  of  the  Judges  is 
also  that  which  is  assigned  to  them  by  the  Law.  They 
are  spoken  of  as  sojourners  (Judg.  xvii.  7-9,  xix.  i), 
because  they  had  no  inheritance  like  other  tribes 
(ch.  i.).     They  took  down  the  Ark  of  the  Lord,^  when 

i  This  passage  flatly  contradicts  the  extraordinary  comment  which 
the  Professor  makes  (p.  2S8)  upon  Jer.  vii.  22,  "  It  is  impossible  to  give 
a  flatter  contradiction  to  the  traditional  theory  that  the  Levitical  sys- 
tem was  enacted  in  the  Wilderness."  He  might  as  well  quote  Luke 
xiv.  26  in  proof  that  the  Gospel  prohibits  filial  affection. 

2  Prof.  W.  R.  Smith  (p.  427J  finds  an  "  irregularity  "  in  the  fact 


92  PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

sent  back  by  the  Philistines  (l.  Sam.  vi.  15),  while 
the  men  who  looked  at  the  Ark  were  smitten  by  a 
great  slaughter  (ver.  19),  and  Uzzah  was  smitten  for 
presuming  to  take  hold  of  it  (ll.  Sam.  vi,  7 ;  com- 
pare Num.  iv.  15,  20).  Beth-shemesh  being  a  priestly 
city  (Josh.  xxi.  16)  must  have  contained  those  who 
could  rightfully  offer  sacrifices  on  the  arrival  of 
the  Ark.  Samuel,  who  was  a  Levite  ^  (i.  Chron.  vi. 
28)  —  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  his  father  is  called 
an  Ephrathite  (l.  Sam.  i.  i)  in  consequence  of  his 
residing  within  the  bounds  of  Ephraim  (compare 
Judg.    xvii.    7)  —  performed    subordinate    ministries 

that  "  according  to  the  Levitical  Law  it  is  the  function  of  the  Le- 
vites  to  carry  the  Ark ;  in  the  history  the  Ark  is  borne  by  the  priests 
(Josh.  iii.  3,  vi.  6,  viii.  33;  I.  Kings  viii.  3)."  But  this  is  no  "irregular- 
ity" -whatever.  The  priests,  being  themselves  Levites,  and  of  the 
family  of  Kohath  (Num.  xxvii.  58,  59),  had  of  course  a  legal  right  to 
do  whatever  was  perfonned  by  the  latter  (Num.  iv.  15).  Hence,  on 
occasions  of  special  solemnity,  priests  were  bearers  of  the  Ark;  while 
on  all  ordinary  occasions  the  Levites  were  competent.  Accordingly 
II.  Sam.  XV.  24,  29  where  "  the  Levites  aid  the  chief  priests  in  carrying 
the  Ark"  does  not  need  for  its  explanation  the  unfounded  suggestion 
"  that  before  Ezekiel  priests  and  Levites  are  not  two  separate  classes." 
Conveying  the  Ark  in  a  cart  (JI.  Sam.  vi.  3)  was  in  violation  of  the  Law, 
and  led  to  a  disastrous  issue  (vers.  6-,']);  this  was  recognized  and  cor- 
rected (ver.  13). 

1  Samuel  did  not  become  a  priest,  as  Prof.  \V.  R.  Smith  affirms 
(p.  259).  The  ephod  which  he  wore  is  not  that  "which  the  Law  con- 
fines to  the  high-priest,"  for  it  was  a  "linen  ephod"  (i.  Sam.  ii.  18), 
while  that  of  the  high-priest  (Ex.  xxviii.  6)  was  of  more  costly  mate- 
rials. Nor  is  it  true  that  he  wore  "  the  high-priestly  mantle."  One 
article  of  the  high-priest's  dress  was  a  mantle  (Authorized  Version, 
robe)  made  as  is  described  (Ex.  xxviii.  31,  ff.).  But  others  besides 
priests  wore  mantles  ;  so  that  when  Samuel's  mother  made  him  a  lit- 
tle one  (Authorized  Version,  coat)  year  by  year,  she  did  not  invade  the 
high-priest's  prerogative.  Thus  "the  startling  irregularities  "after  all 
amount  to  nothing. 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH.  93 

at  the  Tabernacle  (l.  Sam.  ii.  11;  compare  Num.  viii. 
22). 

The  alleged  departures  from  the  ritual  law  at 
Shiloh  were  not  really  such.  Eli's  sons  "  made  ir- 
regular exactions,  and,  in  particular,  would  not  burn 
the  fat  of  the  sacrifice  till  they  had  secured  a  portion 
of  uncooked  meat  (l.  Sam.  ii.  12  seq.^.  Under  the 
Levitical  ordinance  this  claim  was  perfectly  regular 
.  .  .  (Lev.  vii.  30  scq.^  x.  15)  ;  but  at  Shiloh  the 
claim  was  viewed  as  illegal  and  highly  wicked  "  (p. 
258).  The  sin  of  Eli's  sons,  and  that  which  so  dis- 
gusted the  worshippers,  was  that  they  forcibly  in- 
sisted on  having  their  share  before  the  Lord  had  His ; 
and  further,  they  claimed  over  and  above  what  the 
Law  allowed.  Their  legal  portion  was  a  matter  of 
course,  and  is  not  particularly  spoken  of;  but  when 
the  servant,  with  his  flesh-hook:,  seized  upon  what- 
ever he  could  get  without  leave  or  license,  this  was 
both  offensive  and  unauthorized.  And  when  the 
priestly  perquisite  was  demanded  before  the  fat  was 
given  to  God  upon  the  altar,  and  violence  was  threat- 
ened if  this  was  not  conceded,  the  worship  of  Jeho- 
vah was  plainly  subordinated  to  priestly  gain.  The 
abominable  character  of  the  proceeding  cannot  be 
glossed  over  by  any  reference  to  the  Levitical  requi- 
sitions.^    Resistance  to  such  impiety  and  selfish  greed 

1  The  ritual  of  the  peace-offering,  as  given  (Lev.  iii.  I  ff),  required 
the  presentation  of  the  victim,  laying  on  of  hands,  slaying  the  animal, 
removing  the  fat  and  burning  it  upon  the  altar  as  a  sweet  savor  unto 
the  Lord.  A  supplemental  law  (vii.  28  ff.)  specifies  the  portion  to  be 
given  CO  the  priests  and  the  religious  ceremonies  to  be  observed 
in  connection  with  it ;  but  it  affords  no  justification  for  the  atrocious 


94  PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

is  not  fitly  spoken  of  as  "  attaching  importance  to 
details." 

But  what  is  to  be  thought  of  the  sacrifices  oft'ered 
elsewhere  than  at  the  Sanctuary  in  the  period  of  the 
Judges,  and  by  others  than  priests  the  sons  of  Aaron? 
Two  facts  are  obvious  upon  the  surface  which  regu- 
late this  whole  matter.  The  first  is,  that  there  is  no 
mention  in  the  entire  Book  of  Judges,  from  beginning 
to  end,  of  any  legitimate  sanctuary  but  that  at  Shiloh, 
or  any  lawful  priest  not  descended  from  Aaron.  In 
every  instance  of  reputed  irregularity,  it  appears  by 
the  record  that  there  was  no  stated  or  continuous 
departure  from  Levitical  rules,  but  only  a  deviation 
strictly  limited  to  the  occasion  which  called  it  forth. 
A  second  fact,  equally  apparent,  is  that  these  devia- 
tions are  invariably  linked  with  immediate  divine 
manifestations.  In  the  lamentable  condition  to  which 
the  people  were  reduced,  Jehovah,  or  the  Angel  of 
Jehovah,  appeared  from  time  to  time  on  their  behalf. 
In  every  such  instance  sacrifices  were  offered  on  the 
spot  by  those  to  whom  the  LORD  thus  appeared ;  and 
in  the  absence  of  such  a  theophany,  sacrifices  were 
never  offered  except  at  Shiloh,  or  in  the  presence 
of  the  Ark,  and  by  priests  of  the  house  of  Aaron. 
Wherever  God  appears  the  place  becomes,  for  that 
moment,  holy  ground  (Ex.  iii.  5  ;  Josh.  v.  15  ;  II.  Sam. 
xxiv.  16,  18).  It  possesses,  for  the  time,  the  sanctity 
of  the  Tabernacle.     And  the  law  that  restricts  sacri- 

claim  that  the  priestly  portion  should  have  precedence  over  that  which 
was  destined  to  the  altar,  or  that  these  should  ever  be  ranked  on 
a  par. 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH,  95 

ficial  worship,  in  ordinary  times,  to  the  place  where 
God  statedly  manifests  Himself,  cannot  forbid  due 
worship  being  paid  to  Him  in  any  other  place  which 
He  may  make  the  scene  of  an  extraordinary  revela- 
tion.  To  this  extent  only  Ex.  xx.  24  authorizes 
altars  elsewhere  than  at  the  Sanctuary.  Similarly, 
the  divinely  appointed  priests  alone  were  authorized 
ordinarily  to  draw  near  to  God  and  officiate  at  His 
altar.  Other  men  could  approach  Him  acceptably 
only  through  their  intervention.  But  if  God  Him- 
self sees  fit,  in  any  case,  to  dispense  with  sacerdotal 
mediation,  the  man  to  whom  He  comes  near,  by  an 
immediate  gracious  manifestation,  is  thereby  war- 
ranted to  present  his  homage  directly  to  Him  in 
whose  presence  he  stands. 

Thus  (Judg.  ii.  1-5  )  the  angel  of  the  LORD  appeared 
to  the  people  at  Bochim,  and  they  sacrificed  there 
unto  the  Lord  ;  so  to  Gideon,  with  a  like  result  (vi. 
20-22)  ;  a  second  appearance  to  Gideon,  with  ex- 
plicit directions,  which  he  obeys  (vers.  25  ff.)  ;  a 
supernatural  manifestation  to  Manoah,  and  a  sacrifice 
(xiii.  16  ff.).  And  these  are  positively  all  the  in- 
stances of  irregular  sacrifice  in  the  Book  of  Judges 
which  are  not  distinctly  stigmatized  as  idolatrous. 
No  one  of  these  places  was  subsequently  a  place  of 
sacrifice ;  and  Gideon  and  Manoah  are  nowhere  said 
to  have  sacrificed  again.  The  altar  of  Gideon,  said 
to  be  still  remaining  in  Ophrah  (Judg.  vi.  24),  was 
in  all  likelihood  a  monumental  altar,  as  Ex.  xvii,  15  ; 
Josh.  xxii.  26  ff.  It  does  not  appear  that  Gideon 
ever  offered  upon  it.     When  directed  to  make  a  sac- 


96  PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

rifice,  immediately  after  (ver.  25),  he  built  another 
altar.  Much  less  does  it  appear  that  it  was  used  for 
sacrifice  after  his  time.  If  a  writer  were  to  tell  us 
that  the  fort  of  Ticonderoga  is  there  to  this  day,  we 
need  not  infer  that  the  ancient  hostilities  are  still  con- 
tinued. Judg.  xi.  II,  ''  Jephthah  uttered  all  his  words 
before  the  LORD  in  Mizpeh,"  east  of  the  Jordan,  and 
(xx.  i)  ''the  congregation  was  gathered  together 
unto  the  LORD  in  Mizpeh,"  west  of  Jordan;  these 
statements  do  not  imply  that  either  Mizpeh  was  a 
sanctuary.  There  is  no  allusion  to  sacrifices  in  either 
instance.  "  Before  the  LORD  "  simply  implies  a  sol- 
emn recognition  of  God's  presence  (Gen.  xxvii.  7 ; 
Ex.  vi.  12,  30;  I.  Sam.  xxvi.  19;  Ps.  cxvi.  9).  That 
they  who  bring  a  sacrifice  are  said  to  "  ofi"er "  it 
(Judg.  xxi.  4;  I.  Sam.  ii.  13),  does  not  imply  that 
every  one  could  perform  priestly  functions ;  for  like 
expressions  are  used  in  the  Levitical  Law  itself  (Lev. 
xix.  5).  We  do  not  suppose  that  the  Professor  will 
dispute  the  reality  of  the  divine  appearances  recorded 
in  Judges,  but  if  he  did  this  would  not  disturb  our 
argument.  For  the  theophanies  and  the  sacrifices 
are  firmly  linked  together ;  and  if  there  is  no  evidence 
that  the  former  took  place,  there  is  none  that  the 
latter  were   offered. 

But  the  Professor  tells  us  (p.  256)  that 

—  "  all  God's  acts  of  grace  mentioned  in  the  Book  of  Judges, 
all  His  calls  to  repentance,  and  all  the  ways  in  which  He 
appears  from  time  to  time  to  support  His  people  ....  are 
connected  with  this  same  local  worship.  The  call  to  repent- 
ance is  never  a  call  to  put  aside  the  local  sanctuaries,  and 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH.  97 

worship  only  before  the  Ark  at  Shiloh If  the  Penta- 

teuchal  programme  of  worship,  and  the  rules  which  it  lays 
do\Mi  for  the  administration  of  the  dispensation  of  grace, 
existed  in  these  days,  they  were  at  least  absolutely  suspended. 
It  was  not  according  to  the  Law  that  Jehovah  administered 
His  grace  to  Israel  during  the  period  of  the  Judges." 

There  were  no  "  local  sanctuaries,"  as  we  have  seen, 
excej^t  the  idolatrous  shrines ;  and  every  call  to  for- 
sake Baal  and  Ashtoreth  and  return  to  Jehovah,  was 
a  summons  to  abandon  them,  and  worship  in  Shiloh; 
and  their  cries  unto  the  LORD  (Judg.  iii.  9,  iv.  3,  etc.) 
doubtless  found  expression  at  the  altar  and  the  Sanct- 
tfary.  The  infrequent  mention  of  the  Sanctuary  in 
Shiloh  in  the  course  of  this  period  can  throw  no 
doubt  upon  its  continuity ;  for  we  find  it  at  the  end  of 
the  period  just  where  and  as  it  was  at  the  beginning, 
and  as  it  had  been  from  the  days  of  Joshua.  The 
regular  operation  of  established  institutions  is  taken 
for  granted  by  historians,  and  seems  to  demand 
no  special  record.  And  the  writer  of  Judges  pro- 
fessedly devotes  himself  to  reciting  the  instances  of 
apostasy,  punishment,  and  deliverance  (ii.  11-19), 
while  the  intervals  of  rest  and  pious  obedience  are 
passed  over  with  a  simple  mention  of  their  existence 
(iii.  1 1,  30,  viii.  28,  etc.).  But  if  Shiloh  was  the  religious 
centre  of  the  true  worshippers  of  Jehovah,  why  was 
it  not  the  fountain-head  of  religious  power,  the  spring 
of  every  religious  movement?  Why  did  not  the 
trumpet-call  to  repentance  issue  from  its  priests,  and 
each  recurring  revival  spread  from  Shiloh  outward? 
Why  this  seeming   paralysis  of   the   regularly  insti- 

7 


98  PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

tuted  ordinances  and  means  of  grace,  and  of  the  duly 
authorized  ministers  of  rehgion?  The  Church  may 
weU  ask,  and  hang  her  head  in  shame.  With  all  the 
deduction  for  the  unrecorded  influence  that  emanated 
from  the  Sanctuary,  and  this  was  doubtless  great  at 
this  as  at  every  epoch,  it  must  be  still  confessed  that 
things  are  not  altogether  as  on  theory  might  have 
been  expected.  Nor  were  they  when  the  Redeemer 
came  to  His  own  and  His  own  received  Him  not. 
Nor  were  they  at  the  Reformation  of  Luther. 

But  how  does  this  discredit  the  existence  of  a  cen- 
tral sanctuary  and  an  Aaronic  priesthood?  The  body 
is  nourished  and  strengthened  by  its  ordinary  food*, 
and  nothing  more  might  seem  requisite  when  it  is  in 
a  healthy  condition ;  and  yet  remedies  may  become 
necessary" which  are  quite  aside  from  the  regularly 
prescribed  diet.  The  people  had  no  other  medium 
of  acceptable  approach  to  God,  of  expressing  their 
homage  or  obtaining  His  saving  help,  than  by  the 
established  ordinances  of  worship.  But  God  was  not 
limited  to  these  in  His  dealings  with  His  people.  His 
grace  is  broader  than  the  channels  through  which  it 
ordinarily  flows.  Special  divine  influences  were  not 
restricted  to  the  Sanctuary  even  in  the  days  of  Moses 
(Num.  xi.  26-29).  The  Romish  error  of  an  external 
Church  as  the  sole  dispenser  of  grace  finds  no  sanc- 
tion under  the  Old  Testament  more  than  under  the 
New. 

And  no  exposition  of  the  Levitical  institutions, 
which  places  regularity  of  ritual  observance  upon  a 
par  with  the  spirit  it  was  designed  to  express,  can 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH. 


99 


make  them  tally  with  the  history  of  Israel,  the  devout 
breathings  of  the  Psalmists,  or  the  teachings  of  the 
Prophets.  The  ritualism  of  the  Law  may  be  em- 
phasized to  such  a  degree  as  to  bring  Leviticus  into 
disharmony  with  the  abundant  inculcations  of  spiritual 
obedience  in  Deuteronomy;  to  make  it  antagonistic 
to  the  declarations  of  Isai.  i.  ii  ff.,  Amos  v.  21  ff., 
and  Micah  vi.  8  (p.  287)  ;  and  to  represent  it  as  the 
grand  essential  of  a  religious  reformation  under  the 
Law  *'  to  re-establish  the  stated  burnt-offering,  and 
the  due  atoning  ritual  before  the  Ark  in  the  hands  of 
the  legitimate  priesthood,  and  on  the  pattern  of  the 
service  in  the  Wilderness  "  (p.  263).  And  then  the 
fact  may  be  established  that  no  such  system  is  trace- 
able in  Israel  before  the  rise  of  post-exilic  Pharisaism. 
But  the  question  will  recur,  Is  it  Leviticus  that  is  at 
fault,  or  the  wrong  interpretation  which  has  been 
foisted  upon  it?  Is  Leviticus  post-exilic,  or  has  Pro- 
fessor Robertson  Smith  simply  misconceived  the  spirit 
of  the  Law  and  the  method  of  its  administration?  He 
tells  us  (p.  213),  "The  Israelite  had  no  right  to  draw 
a  distinction  between  the  spirit  and  the  letter  of  the 
Law."  He  was  obliged  to  do  this  on  numberless 
occasions.  David  and  his  men,  in  danger  of  perish- 
ing with  hunger,  ate  the  shew-bread.  The  priests  in 
the  Temple  profaned  the  Sabbath  and  were  blameless. 
The  rites  of  burial  were  defiling.  Ezekiel  threatens 
Israel  that  they  shall  be  compelled  to  eat  defiled 
bread  among  the  Gentiles.  Aaron,  in  his  grief, 
burned  tlie  sin-offering  instead  of  eating  it  in  the  Holy 
Place,  and  was  justified  in  so  doing  (Lev.  x.  19,  20). 


lOO  PROF.   ROBERTSON  SMITH  - 

Hezekiah  prayed  (ll.  Chron.  xxx.  19)  that  the  good 
Lord  would  pardon  every  one  that  prepareth  his 
heart  to  seek  God,  the  Lord  God  of  his  fathers, 
though  he  be  not  cleansed  according  to  the  purification 
of  the  Sanctuary.  The  Law,  whose  fundamental  tenets 
are  (Lev.  xix.  2)  *' Ye  shall  be  holy,  for  I  the  LORD 
your  God  am  holy,"  and  (ver.  18),  ''Thou  shalt  love 
thy  neighbor  as  thyself,"  not  only  makes  the  spiritual 
meaning  the  essential  thing  in  every  rite,  but  puts 
that  spiritual  meaning  above  any  external  rite  what- 
ever. Samuel  is  a  true  interpreter  of  it  when  he  says 
(i.  Sam.  XV.  22)  :  "  Hath  the  Lord  as  great  delight  in 
burnt-offerings  and  sacrifices  as  in  obeying  the  voice 
of  the  Lord?  Behold,  to  obey  is  better  than  sacri- 
fice, and  to  hearken,  than  the  fat  of  rams." 

When  Israel  sinned  with  the  Golden  Calf  and  broke 
their  covenant  with  God  which  had  just  been  ratified, 
the  offence  was  not  atoned  nor  the  breach  repaired 
by  any  ritual.  On  the  contrary,  the  Tabernacle 
was  removed  outside  of  the  camp  (Ex.  xxxiii.  7). 
There  was  no  demand  of  sacrifice  or  lustration,  but 
only  of  repentance  and  humiliation  (vers.  4  ff.)  The 
people  were  sorely  punished  (xxxii.  27,  35),  but  at 
Moses'  earnest  intercession  they  were  forgiven  (vers. 
30  ff.)  When  they  sinned  at  Kadesh  by  refusing 
to  go  into  the  Promised  Land,  not  a  word  was  said 
of  sacrificial  expiation  or  of  greater  zeal  in  the  cere- 
monial. The  Tabernacle  and  the  altar  and  the  ritual 
drop  out  of  sight  as  completely  as  if  they  did  not  exist. 
It  was  upon  Moses' fervent  intercession  (Num.  xiv.  ii 
ff.)  that  the  people  were  spared  from  instant  destruc- 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH.  lOI 

tion,  though  still  condemned  to  perish  in  theWilderncss  ; 
and,  as  appears  from  Josh.  v.  5  ff.,  the  rite  of  circum- 
cision was  suspended,  the  breakers  of  the  covenant 
being  deprived  of  its  seal.  According  to  Lev.  xxvi. 
and  Deut.  xxviii.  the  transgression  of  the  people  will 
be  visited  by  ever  increasing  judgments,  culminating 
in  exile  from  the  Lord's  land;  and  the  return  of 
God's  favor  is  suspended  (Lev.  xxvi.  40  ff. ;  Deut. 
iv.  29),  not  upon  a  punctilious  observance  of 
rites  and  ceremonies,  but  upon  confession  of  their 
iniquity  and  the  humbling  of  their  uncircumcised 
hearts. 

The  principles  thus  outlined  in  the  Law  itself  govern 
the  Book  of  Judges.  It  records  the  inflictions  by 
which  the  LORD  from  time  to  time  recalled  the  of- 
fending people  to  a  sense  of  their  duty  and  their  need 
of  divine  help.  These  were  enforced  by  communica- 
tions from  "  the  Angel  of  the  Lord  "  (Judg.  ii.  i  ff. 
etc.),  as  promised  (Ex.  xxiii.  20  ff.),  and  by  Prophets. 
(Judg.  iv.  4,  vi.  8.,  etc.  See  Deut.  xviii.  15  ff.)  It 
was  not  to  be  expected  that  the  leaders  raised  up  to 
judge  and  to  deliver  the  people  would  be  from  the 
sacerdotal  tribe.  Moses'  own  successor  was  from  the 
tribe  of  Ephraim.  That  Gideon  and  Samson  were 
called  to  their  extraordinary  mission  not  by  a  sum- 
mons from  the  Sanctuary,  but  by  an  immediate  divine 
manifestation  at  their  homes,  is  in  accordance  with 
the  analogy  of  the  call  of  Moses.  And  yet  neither 
these  judgments  nor  these  leaders  effected  a  genuine 
and  thorough  reformation.  The  people  were  gradu- 
ally sinking  from  the  days  of  Joshua  and  the  elders 


I02       PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

that  overlived  him  (Judg.  ii.  7)  to  the  time  of  Jephthah 
and  Samson ;  and  the  priesthood,  it  must  be  added, 
fell  from  the  level  of  Phinehas,  the  grandson  of  Aaron, 
to  that  of  his  namesake,  the  son  of  Eli.  The  first 
effective  measures  for  a  true  religious  reform  had 
their  source  in  Shiloh ;  they  were  the  work  of  Samuel, 
who  was  trained  at  the  Sanctuary. 

But  the  Professor  tells  us  (p.  263):  ''Samuel  did 
not  know  of  a  systematic  and  exclusive  system  of 
sacrificial  ritual  confined  to  the  Sanctuary  of  the  Ark" 
(p.  261)  ;  *'  He  continued  to  sacrifice  at  a  variety  of 
shrines ;  and  his  yearly  circuit  to  Bethel,  Gilgal,  and 
Mizpeh,  returning  to  Ramah,  involved  the  recognition 
of  all  these  altars."  The  Lord  declares  through 
Jeremiah  (vii.  12,  14,  xxvi.  6),  that  He  has  aban- 
doned Shiloh,  *'  where  He  set  His  name  at  the  first," 
on  account  of  the  wickedness  of  His  people  Israel, 
and  He  will  do  the  same  to  His  house  in  Jerusalem, 
**  which  is  called  by  His  name."  Ps.  Ixxviii.  60,  68  : 
"He  forsook  the  Tabernacle  of  Shiloh,"  and  ''  chose 
Mount  Zion."  The  Prophet  and  the  Psalmist  know 
of  but  two  sanctuaries  in  Israel,  successively  sanc- 
tioned by  the  Lord,  —  Shiloh  and  Zion.  As  the  Tab- 
ernacle was  removed  from  the  midst  of  the  camp  in 
consequence  of  the  idolatry  at  Sinai  (Ex.  xxxiii.  7), 
so,  for  a  like  reason,  Israel  was  bereft  of  the  Ark, 
which  was  sent  into  captivity  in  the  land  of  the  Phil- 
istines (i  Sam.  iv.  11).  God  had  no  sanctuary  in 
Israel  from  that  day  forward.  The  Ark  was  restored 
again  by  the  discomfited  Philistines ;  but  the  slaughter 
of  the  men  in  the  priestly  city  of  Beth-shemesh  showed 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH.  1 03 

that  Israel  was  not  prepared  to  have  Jehovah  fix  His 
residence  among  them;  and  it  was  an  embarrassing 
question  how  to  dispose  of  the  Ark,  which  only  spread 
terror  in  Israel  as  it  had  done  among  the  uncircum- 
cised.  It  was  finally  placed  provisionally  in  the  ob- 
scurity of  a  private  house,  and  guarded,  so  far  as 
appears,  by  a  pious   layman  (i.  Sam.  vii.  i). 

Here  is  a  novel  and  most  extraordinary  state  of 
affairs.  The  Ark,  which  as  the  symbol  and  pledge  of 
Jehovah's  presence  has  always  hitherto  been  the  con- 
fidence and  the  glory  of  Israel,  is  now  a  source  of 
alarm.  It  was  not  taken  back  to  Shiloh,  nor  was  it 
taken  to  Nob,  when  the  Tabernacle  was  carried  thither 
(i.  Sam.  xxi.  1,6).  It  was  not  put  in  any  sanctuary. 
It  was  simply  sheltered  in  the  dwelling  of  an  ordinary 
Israelite.  No  priest  or  Levite  ministered  before  it. 
No  sacrifices  were  offered  where  it  was.  No  pilgrim- 
ages were  made  to  it  (i.  Chron.  xiii.  3).^  And  during 
its  long  abode  in  Kirjath-jearim,  **  all  the  house  of 
Israel  lamented  after  the  Lord"  (i.  Sam.  vii.  2). 
The  covenant  between  Jehovah  and  Israel  was  sev- 
ered, and  they  knew  it.  The  Lord  no  longer  had  a 
dwelling-place  in  the  midst  of  them. 

Now  the  one  purpose  of  Samuel's  life  was  to  bring 
Israel  back  to  God,  and  thus  restore  these  ruptured 
relations.  And  absolutely  the  Professor  thinks  (pp. 
262,  263)  that  the  thing  for  him  to  have  done  was  to 

1  In  I.  Sam.  xiv.  18,  as  Prof.  W.  R.  Smith  correctly  informs  us 
(p.  94),  there  seems  to  be  an  error  in  the  Hebrew  text;  and  there 
is  much  to  recommend  the  reading  of  the  Septuagint,  which  sub- 
stitutes "  ephod  "  for  "  ark." 


I04       PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

have  taken  the  Ark  to  Nob, — "  for  the  distance  be- 
tween these  towns  is  only  a  forenoon's  walk,"  —  and 
to  have  set  up  the  Levitical  service  under  the  conduct 
of  the  Aaronic  priesthood  !  And  because  he  did  not 
do  this,  the  Levitical  Law  could  not  have  been  in  ex- 
istence !  Such  reasoning  betrays  the  most  astonish- 
ing misconception  of  the  relation  between  Jehovah 
and  Israel,  and  of  the  ritual  institutions  by  which  that 
relation  was  expressed  and  maintained.  Outward 
regularity  in  the  prescribed  ceremonial  had  nothing 
in  it  that  was  acceptable,  so  long  as  the  hearts  of  the 
people  were  alienated  from  God.  Leaving  the  peo- 
ple in  their  profound  but  salutary  grief  at  the  loss 
of  the  Sanctuary,  and  of  God's  visible  presence  among 
them,  he  sought  **  to  have  them  return  unto  the  Lord 
with  all  their  hearts,"  '*  to  prepare  their  hearts  unto 
the  Lord  and  serve  Him  only  "  (i.  Sam.  vii.  3).  The 
worship  which  he  conducted  was  sacrificial,  of  course ; 
that  was  the  symbolic  form  by  which  penitence 
and  consecration  were  expressed.  But  the  sacrifice 
was  without  a  sanctuary  and  without  a  priesthood. 
Samuel  officiated,  not  because  he  was  a  regular 
priest,  for  he  was  not;  nor  by  virtue  of  his  being  a 
Levite,  which  would  have  given  him  no  legal  right 
to  offer  sacrifice  ;  but  in  his  prophetic  character  as 
God's  ambassador  and  representative.  But  that  this 
function  was  an  extraordinary  one  appears  from  the 
fact  that  it  was  limited  to  Samuel  alone  (l.  Sam.  ix. 
13).  There  is,  from  the  time  that  the  Ark  was  laid 
up  at  Kirjath-jearim  till  David  removed  it  to  Zion, 
scarcely  a  recorded  instance  of  sacrifice  when  Sam- 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH, 


05 


uel  ^  was  not  present,  —  except  the  rash  and  luckless 
act  of  Saul,  which  brought  upon  him  Samuel's  stern 
reprobation  and  the  loss  of  his  kingdom,  in  spite  of 
his  apology  that  he  was  forced  to  do  as  he  did  by  the 
unavoidable  pressure  of  circumstances  (i.  Sam.  xiii. 
8-14).  Samuel  is  plainly  the  centre  of  the  religious 
life  of  the  period.  The  presence  of  God,  so  far  as  its 
gracious  manifestation  to  Israel  is  concerned,  is  for  the 
time  linked  with  the  Prophet,  not  with  the  Ark. 

The  new  religious  fervor  awakened  by  the  ministry 
of  Samuel  found  expression  as  it  could.  In  the  ab- 
sence of  any  divinely  authorized  sanctuary  we  read 
of  men  going  up  to  God  to  Bethel  (x.  3),  where  God 
had  met  with  Jacob ;  of  a  high  place  at  Gibeah  (x. 
5),  visited  by  a  company  of  prophets  and  established 
probably  on  account  of  its  proximity  to  their  resi- 
dence ;  of  a  yearly  sacrifice  of  David's  family  (xx. 
6)  at  their  home  in  Bethlehem.  These  are  the  only 
instances  of  the  sort  which  are  mentioned,  except  the 
sacrifices  conducted  by  Samuel  himself.  All  the  ado 
made  about  "  local  sanctuaries,"  prior  to  the  reign  of 
David,  dwindles  down  to  this ;  and  in  it  there  is  no 
departure  even  from  the  strict  letter  of  the  Law  (i. 
Kings,  iii.  2)? 

1  In  I.  Sam.  vii.  9,  17  ;  ix.  12,  13;  x.  8;  xi.  14,  15;  xvi.  2-5,  Sam- 
uel is  distinctly  named  as  the  offerer,  or  at  least  sanctioned  the  sacri- 
fice by  his  presence  and  participation.  Saul  built  an  altar  (xiv.  35), 
and  he  spoke  (xv.  15,  21)  of  the  people's  proposing  to  sacrifice  the 
spoils  of  the  Amalekites  in  Gilgal ;  but  he  cannot  have  thought  of 
offering  in  the  absence  of  Samuel  after  the  rebuff  which  he  had 
already  received. 

2  What  is  said  of  David's  "want  of  orthodoxy  "  (p.  264)  seems  for 


I06       PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

The  worship  in  high  places  was  irregular  and  ille- 
gal after  the  Temple  was  built ;  but  the  fact  that  they 
were  tolerated  by  pious  princes,  who  contented 
themselves  with  abolishing  the  emblems  and  prac- 
tices of  idolatry  found  there,  only  shows  that  they 

the  most  part  captious.  David  did  not  wear  "  the  priestly  ephod  " 
(ii.  Sam.  vi.  14)  but  a  linen  ephod,  which  was  worn  by  priests  but  was 
no  part  of  their  prescribed  dress ;  and,  as  shown  by  this  instance  and 
that  of  Samuel  when  a  child  (r.  Sam.  ii.  18),  might  be  worn  by  others 
on  sacred  occasions.  "  He  offered  sacrifices  in  person  "  (ver.  13),  and 
so  Prof.  W.  R.  Smith  tells  us  (p.  248) :  "  Solomon  officiated  at  the 
altar  in  person  (i.  Kings,  ix.  25)  ";  and  by  alike  principle  of  interpreta- 
tion it  might  have  been  added  that  he  built  the  altar  with  his  own 
hands.  If  Solomon  really  "  offered  two  and  twenty  thousand  oxen 
and  an  hundred  and  twenty  thousand  sheep  "  in  person  at  one  time, 
he  must  have  had  a  weary  task  (i.  Kings,  viii.  63).  "  He  blessed  the 
people  as  a  priest  in  the  name  of  Jehovah"  (ver.  18),  where  "as  a 
priest  "  is  without  any  warrant  in  the  text.  "  David's  sons  were  priests 
(II.  Sam.  viii.  18)  ";  but  though  this  is  the  usual  sense  of  the  word,  it 
must  have  a  different  meaning  here,  since  the  priests  properly  so  called 
had  already  been  named  in  the  verse  preceding.  In  i.  Chron.  xviii.  17 
it  is  paraphrased  "  chief  about  the  king,"  which  is  justified  by  the  pri- 
mary sense  of  the  term,  and  perhaps  by  the  consideration  that  this  high 
and  confidential  office  was  commonly  entrusted  to  priests.  (Compare 
eunuch.  Gen.  xxxix.  i,  not  in  its  proper  sense,  but  as  an  official  title.) 
That  he  weakly  allowed  Absalom  to  visit  Hebron  under  pretence  of  a 
sacrificial  vow,  may  be  justified  by  i.  Kings,  iii.  2.  His  marriage  with  a 
princess  of  Geshur  (11.  Sam.  iii.  3)  is  not  a  violation  of  the  letter  of 
the  Law,  but  offends  as  much  against  the  spirit  of  the  first  legislation 
(Ex.  xxxiv.  15,  16)  as  against  that  of  Deuteronomy;  and,  as  this  was 
Absalom's  mother,  the  history  records  the  dreadful  penalty  he  incurred. 
"Solomon,  building  new  shrines  for  the  gods  of  his  wives"  (p.  248), 
could  not  plead  ignorance  of  the  Law,  on  the  Professor's  own  theory 
(Ex.  xxii.  20,  xxiii.  24).  The  Professor  further  proves  that  the  priest  re- 
ceived his  consecration  not  from  Jehovah  but  from  the  people,  by  the 
case  of  Micah  (Judg.  xvii.  5,  12),  the  idolater,  who  stole  his  mother's 
money  (ver.  2),  and  by  the  case  of  Eleazar,  son  of  Abinadab  (i.  Sam. 
vii.  i),  who  was  not  a  priest  at  all  (p.  264). 


ON  THE  PEATATEUCH. 


107 


did  not  do  their  whole  duty, —  not  that  the  Law  which 
had  ruled  ever  since  the  days  of  Moses  did  not  exist 
They  may  very  easily  have  persuaded  themselves 
that  the  spirit  of  the  Law  was  maintained  if  only  the 
abuses  were  rectified,  that  if  God  was  sincerely  and 
piously  worshipped  in  these  local  sanctuaries  there 
could  not  be  much  harm  in  suffering  them  to  remain. 
How  much  of  the  New  Testament  must  have  been 
written  after  the  Reformation  of  Luther,  if  the  habit- 
ual disregard  of  its  teachings  is  to  be  accepted  as 
evidence  against  their  existence,  and  especially  if  the 
''*  popular  religion"  is  made  the  measure  of  primitive 
Christianity !  How  plain  it  is,  upon  these  principles, 
that  the  doctrine  of  Justification  by  Faith  could  never 
have  been  formulated  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  if  it  was 
not  apprehended  in  its  integrity  by  the  early  Fathers 
and  the  theologians  of  the  Middle  Ages  !  Hezekiah's 
admitted  reform  (ll.  Kings,  xviii.  4)  recognized  the 
binding  obligation  of  the  Deuteronomic  Law  a  cent- 
ury before  the  book  was  found  in  the  Temple.  That 
book  —  according  to  the  explicit  testimony  of  the 
author  of  Kings  —  was  no  recent  production  of  the 
reign  of  Josiah.  It  was  "The  Book  of  the  Law"  (ii. 
Kings,  xxii.  8),  i.e.,  the  well  known  volume  so  desig- 
nated (compare  Josh.  i.  7,  8,  viii.  31,  xxiv.  26),  which 
was  found  "  in  the  House  of  the  Lord," — just  where 
it  might  have  been  expected  to  be  (Deut.  xxxi.  9, 
26).  It  is  further  characterized  as  "the  Law  of 
Moses  "  (11.  Kings,  xxiii.  24,  25),  and  is,  as  Prof.  Rob- 
ertson Smith  acknowledges,  the  standard  of  judgment 
which  the  writer  of  the  Book  of  Kings  applies  to  all 


I08  PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

preceding  reigns.  The  people  and  their  rulers  do 
right  or  do  evil  in  the  sight  of  the  LORD  as  they  heed 
or  disregard  its  injunctions.  This  Law  is  expressly 
referred  to  (ll.  Kings,  xxi.  7-9),  as  known  and  diso- 
beyed by  Manasseh,  and,  in  fact,  as  enjoined  by  the 
Lord  upon  David  and  Solomon ;  also  as  obeyed  by 
Hezekiah  (xviii.  6)  and  by  Joash  (xiv.  6),  where  the 
very  words  of  the  statute  are  quoted  from  Deut. 
xxiv.  16.  "  The  testimony "  given  to  Joash  at  his 
coronation  (ll.  Kings,  xi.  12)  was  a  copy  of  the 
written  Law  as  directed  by  Deut.  xvii.  18  (com- 
pare Ps.  xix.  7,  Ixxviii.  5).  It  is  appealed  to  by 
Solomon  in  his  prayer  at  the  dedication  of  the 
Temple  (l.  Kings,  viii.  53,  56),  as  well  as  implied 
throughout  in  the  language  of  his  supplication;  and 
is  commended  by  David  to  Solomon  for  the  rule  of 
his  life  (ii.  3).  It  is  represented  as  equally  binding 
on  the  Ten  Tribes  as  upon  Judah ;  and  their  trans- 
gression of  the  covenant  of  the  LORD  and  the  com- 
mandments of  Moses  led  to  their  overthrow  (ll.  Kings, 
xviii.  12).  The  idolatrous  corruptions  of  the  North- 
ern Kingdom,  which  the  Professor  is  at  great  pains 
to  show  (p.  230)  were  "  not  a  mere  innovation  due  to 
the  schism  of  Jeroboam,"  are  expressly  and  in  detail 
imputed  to  him  (l.  Kings,  xii.  26  ff.,  xiii.  33,  xiv.  8,  9), 
so  that  his  stand4ng  designation  is  *'  Jeroboam,  the 
son  of  Nebat,  who  made  Israel  to  sin"  (il.  Kings,  x.  29, 
etc.).  And  w^hat  the  Professor  persists  in  calling 
''traditional  worship," —  under  which  head  he  heaps 
together  all  the  idolatries  and  glaring  violations  of 
the  Mosaic  Law  that  are  recorded  at  various  times, — 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH.  109 

the  sacred  historians  with  one  voice  denounce  as  de- 
fections from  the  true  worship  of  their  Covenant  God, 
and  as  due  to  criminal  association  with  the  nations 
around  them.  If  they  are  not  to  be  trusted  in  so 
fundamental  a  point  as  this,  they  are  not  to  be  trusted 
in  anything.  It  would  be  better  to  remand  the  entire 
history  of  Israel  to  the  region  of  fable,  and  to  confess 
that  we  have  no  positive  knowledge  about  it,  than  to 
attempt  this  revolutionary  process  of  reconstruction, 
which  is  professedly  based  upon  authorities  that  are 
perpetually  discredited. 

But  if  historians  may  have  incorporated  their  own 
ideas  with  their  narrative,  and  committed  the  mistake 
of  transferring  the  institutions  of  their  own  day  to 
antecedent  periods,  contemporaneous  writings  will  be 
free  from  this  error,  and  represent  truly  the  state  of 
things  in  which  they  were  produced.  Let  us  turn, 
then,  to  these.  The  Book  of  Psalms,  as  the  Professor 
with  all  his  distrust  of  their  titles  confesses,  contains 
some  ancient  songs.  He  admits  that  tradition —  in 
imputing  the  first  portion  of  the  Psalter  (Ps.  i.-xli.) 
almost  without  exception  to  David  —  "  doubtless  ex- 
presses the  fact  that  these  are  the  oldest  Psalms,  be- 
longing to  the  early  age  of  Hebrew  psalmody,  from 
David  downward  "  (p.  202).  Now  in  all  these  Psalms, 
as  in  the  entire  collection  in  fact,  Zion  is  God's 
earthly  dwelling-place ;  no  other  is  once  alluded  to. 
The  Professor  does  not  indicate  which  Psalms  in 
particular  are  to  be  accounted  David's.  Hitzig,  that 
prince  of  doubters,  regards  Pss.  iii.-xix.  as  the  genuine 
Davidic  kernel,  with  the  exception  of  Pss.  v.,  vi.,  xiv. 


no  PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

Prof.  W.  R.  Smith  excepts  to  Pss.  ix.,  x.  Suppose 
that  we  content  ourselves  with  the  modest  residuum. 
We  still  find  that  Jehovah's  abode  is  in  His  Holy 
Hill  (iii.  4),  His  Tabernacle  (xv.  i),  His  Temple  or 
Palace,  which  applies  to  the  Sacred  Tent  as  the  resi- 
dence of  the  Great  King  (xi.  4,  xviii.  6)  ;  and  men- 
tion is  made  of  the  winged  cherub  attached  to  His 
Throne  (xviii.  10),  also  of  Jehovah's  Law  (xix. 
7-10),  and  His  Judgments  and  Statutes  (xviii.  22), 
with  expressions  in  Pss.  xv.  and  xix.  borrowed  from 
legal  phrases  and  ideas,  not  to  speak  of  the  historical 
allusion  in  Ps.  xi.  6,  and  the  abundant  references  to 
the  Pentateuch  in  Ps.  xviii.,  whose  composition  by 
David  is  attested  by  II.  Sam.  xxii. 

We  do  not  know  what  the  Professor  thinks  of 
Ps.  xl.  It  is  in  its  title  ascribed  to  David ;  but 
Smend  —  to  whose  commentary  he  refers  us  (p. 
377)  for  "  the  detailed  proof  that  in  every  point 
Ezekiel's  Torah  prepares  the  way  for  the  Levitical 
Law,  but  represents  a  more  elementary  ritual "  — 
remarks  on  Ezek.  xl.  39,  "  Sin-offerings  and  tres- 
pass-offerings are  here  mentioned  for  the  first  time 
outside  of  the  Priest-codex."  If  Ezekiel  is  the  in- 
ventor of  sin-offerings,  Ps.  xl.  6  ^  must  have  borrowed 
them  from  him  or  from  the  Levitical  Law,  which  he 
pioneered.  Such  language,  when  found  in  Micah  vi. 
8,  Jer.  vii.  22,  is  interpreted  (p.  288)  as  affirming  that 
"  Jehovah  has  not  enjoined  sacrifice,"  that  He  has, 
in  fact,  given  no  law  upon  the  subject;   the  Levitical 

1  *'  Sacrifice  and  offering  Thou  didst  not  desire,  .  .  .  burnt-offering 
and  sin-offering  hast  Thou  not  required." 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH.  m 

Law  was  consequently  still  unknown.  But  if  Ps.  xl. 
6  can  speak  thus  after  Ezekiel's  Law,  or  the  Levitical 
Law,  had  been  announced,  Micah  and  Jeremiah  could 
do  the  same ;  and  then,  for  all  that  appears,  the 
Levitical  Law  may  antedate  their  utterances.^     Or   if 

1  This  conclusion  cannot  be  evaded  by  imputing  to  Ps.  xl.  6  a  sense 
which  the  Professor  (p.  416)  follows  Hitzig  in  attributing  to  Ps.  li.  16, 
17 :  "At  present,  says  the  Psalmist,  God  desires  no  material  sacrifice. 
.  .  .  But  does  the  Psalmist  then  mean  to  say,  absolutely  and  in  gen- 
eral, that  sacrifice  is  a  superseded  thing  ?  No ;  for  he  adds  that  when 
Jerusalem  is  rebuilt  the  sacrifice  of  Israel  (not  merely  his  own  sacri- 
fice) will  be  pleasing  to  God.  He  lives,  therefore,  in  a  time  when  the 
fall  of  Jerusalem  has  temporarily  suspended  the  sacrificial  ordinances." 
Plitzig  thinks  Ps.  xl.  to  be  pre-exilic  and  ascribes  it  to  Jeremiah. 
Olshausen,  who  is  for  sweeping  everything  into  the  Maccabean  period, 
places  it  during  the  persecution  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  when  the 
Temple-worship  was  interdicted.  But  these  passages  in  the  Psalms,  as 
well  as  Ps.  1.  8-15,  are  so  clearly  akin  to  Hos.  vi.  6,  Isai.  i.  11  ff.  etc., 
that  they  must  be  interpreted  on  the  same  principles.  If,  as  is  con- 
fessed, there  is  no  absolute  discarding  of  sacrifice  in  Ps.  li.,  neither  is 
there  in  Ps.  xl.,  nor  in  those  passages  of  the  Prophets  which  are  quoted 
to  show  that  sacrifice,  if  not  actually  disapproved,  was  yet  in  itself  a 
matter  of  indifference.  And  the  Psalmists  declare,  just  as  plainly  as 
the  Prophets,  God's  permanent  attitude  toward  sacrifice.  There  is 
nothing  in  the  language  of  Ps.  li.  to  suggest  the  thought  which  it  is 
proposed  to  put  into  it,  viz.,  that  sacrifices  are  not  required  "  at  pres- 
ent "  because  providentially  rendered  impossible.  And  the  prayer  in 
the  last  two  verses  of  the  Psalm,  "  that  God  will  build  the  walls  of 
Jerusalem,"  does  not  refer  so  manifestly  to  the  period  of  the  "  cap- 
tivity" as  the  Professor  seems  to  suppose.  Nebuchadnezzar  could 
speak  (Dan.  iv.  30)  of  "this  great  Babylon  which  I  have  built,"  with- 
out its  being  necessary  for  us  to  suppose  that  it  did  not  exist  or  was 
in  ruins  when  his  reign  began.  To  "  build  "  a  city  in  Scripture  phrase, 
is  not  merely  to  construct  it  ab  initio,  but  to  strengthen  or  enlarge  it  (Josh. 
xix.  50 ;  I.  Kings,  xii.  25,  xv.  17  ;  ii.  Kings,  xiv.  22  ;  ii.  Chron.  viii.  2  ;  Mic. 
iii.  10;  Hab.  ii.  12,  etc.)  Solomon  built  "the  wall  of  Jerusalem  round 
about"  (i.  Kings, iii.  i,ix.  i5),thoughhisfather  had  not  left  it  defenceless, 
and  no  victorious  foe  had  dismantled  it ;  and,  as  Delitzsch  suggests, 


1 1 2  PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

Ps.  xl.  was  prior  to  the  time  of  Ezekiel,  the  sin-offer- 
ing was  not  introduced  by  him ;  though  not  men- 
tioned elsewhere  it  was  part  of  the  pre-exihc  ritual, 
and  Moses  may  have  ordained  it  after  all.  And  then 
still  further,  the  Psalmist  speaks  (ver.  7)  of  all  this 
as  written  in  a  book-roll,  which  he  identifies  (ver.  8) 
with  the  Law  of  God,  —  a  Vv^'itten  law  respecting 
peace-offering  and  meat-offering,  burnt-offering  and 
sin-offering,  which  lays  its  supreme  stress  not  upon 
the  presentation  of  the  animal  required,  but  upon  the 
surrender  to  God  of  the  person  of  the  offerer.  The 
Professor  tells  us  (p.  364)  —  and  we  preserve  his  ital- 
ics—  "The  old  Israelite  consecrated  Jiiinscif  before  a 
sacrifice."  By  an  "  old  Israelite  "  he  plainly  means, 
in  the  connection,  one  who  lived  under  "  the  first 
legislation "  and  prior  to  the  time  of  Isaiah.  The 
author  of  this  Psalm  was  then  an  ''  old  Israelite,"  and 
may  have  been  David,  as  the  title  declares.  And 
accordingly  David,  or  the  ''  old  Israelite,"  had  a 
written  law,  embracing  precisely  the  forms  of  sacri- 
fice included  in  Leviticus ;  moreover,  he  understood 
it  in  a  very  different  sense  from  the  rigid  ritualism 
which  Prof.  W.  R.  Smith  insists  upon  finding  there. 

From  the  Psalms  we  turn  to  the  Prophets.  Hosea 
and  Amos  are  among  the  earliest  from  whom  we 
have  any  writings.  They  prophesied  in  the  North- 
David's  prayer  found  in  this  a  partial  accomplishment.  There  is  no 
reason,  therefore,  for  setting  aside  the  title  of  this  Psalm,  which  at 
least  represents  a  very  ancient  and  credible  tradition  of  its  origin.  And 
no  person,  surely,  who  is  untrammelled  by  a  hypothesis,  would  ever 
dream  of  dating  the  grateful  thanksgiving  for  divine  benefits  in  Ps.  xl. 
1-5  from  either  the  Babylonish  captivity  or  the  Syrian  persecution. 


OiV  THE  PENTATEUCH.  1 13 

ern  Kingdom,  which  had  been  severed  from  Judah 
for  nearly  200  years.  In  casting  off  subjection  to 
the  house  of  David,  the  Ten  Tribes  had  aban- 
doned the  Temple  at  Jerusalem,  its  priesthood,  and 
its  v/orship.  The  separatist  worship  of  the  calves, 
the  Professor  tells  us,  was  regarded  by  the  people  as 
perfectly  legitimate.  "  They  still  believed  themselves 
loyal  to  Jehovah  "  (p.  231).  They  were  simply  main- 
taining their  old  ancestral  forms.  The  Law,  which 
they  are  charged  with  violating,  had  as  yet  no  exist- 
ence in  Judah ;  and  the  Ten  Tribes  went  into  exile 
long  before  it  was  enacted.  The  Prophets  were  the  real 
innovators.  Leaving  out  of  view  that  Israel's  idol- 
atrous worship  was  in  open  violation,  not  only  of  the 
Deuteronomic  and  Levitical  codes,  but  likewise  of  the 
Ten  Commandments  which  are  admitted  to  be  Mosaic, 
and  the  basis  of  Jehovah's  covenant  with  His  people, 
in  violation,  too,  of  the  first  legislation  (Ex.  xx.  23), 
which  even  on  the  theory  of  Prof.  W.  R.  Smith  ante- 
dated this  period,  what  do  the  Prophets  say  about  it? 

Hosea  constantly  sets  forth  the  relation  between 
Jehovah  and  Israel  under  the  emblem  of  a  marriage 
covenant  (ii.  19,  20),  a  form  of  representation  bor- 
rowed from  the  books  of  Moses  (Ex.  xx.  5,  xxxiv. 
15,  16;  Lev.  xvii.  7,  xx.  5,  6;  Num.  xiv.  33).  His 
ever  reiterated  charge  is  that  Israel  is  an  unfaithful 
wife,  who  had  responded  to  her  Lord  in  former  days, 
when  she  came  up  out  of  Egypt  (ii.  15),  but  had 
since  abandoned  Him  for  other  lovers  (i.-iii.,  etc.), 
Baal  and  the  calves  (xiii.  1,2).  She  has  broken  her 
covenant,  has  dealt   treacherously  (v.  7,  vi.  7),  has 


114  PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH  " 

backslidden  (iv.  i6,  xl.  7,  xiv.  4),  is  repeating  the 
atrocity  of  Gibeah  (ix.  9,  x,  9).  The  prevalent  sacri- 
ficing on  the  hills  and  under  shady  trees  is  a  shameless 
and  criminal  desertion  of  her  lawful  husband  for  a 
base  and  profligate  prostitution  (iv.  13).  Nothing 
certainly  can  be  further  from  the  Prophet's  concep- 
tion, than  that  this  was  Israel's  original  and  hereditary 
worship.  If  the  Professor  is  right,  Hosea  is  radically 
mistaken.  His  language  is  not  that  of  one  who  is 
seeking  to  lift  a  people  to  purer  and  more  spiritual 
ideas,  from  gross  and  degrading  superstitions  in  which 
they  have  always  been  involved.  His  effort  is  to 
reclaim  those  who  have  apostatized  from  God's  true 
service  to  the  standing  from  which  they  have  fallen. 
The  "  knowledge  of  God,"  whose  absence  he  deplores 
(iv.  i),  is  not  a  theoretical  apprehension  of  His  being 
and  attributes,  as  though  his  hearers  had  never  been 
instructed  about  Him,  but,  as  appears  from  its  con- 
comitants, that  practical  acquaintance  with  the  Most 
High  which  is  synonymous  with  true  piety,  and  which 
had  wellnigh  vanished  from  the  land. 

It  appears  from^  Hos.  viii.   12}  that  Israel  had  a 

1  Prof.  Robertson  Smith  translates  this  verse  hypothetically,  as 
is  done  by  several  critics  and  commentators  who  seek  thus  to  evade 
its  explicit  testimony.  To  this  there  are  serious  objections.  But  even 
thus  it  would  establish  the  existence  of  a  detailed  and  copious  law 
embracing  the  subject  of  sacrifice,  and  which  the  Prophet  held  to  be 
from  God,  and  charged  both  priests  and  people  with  neglecting. 
"Though  I  wrote  to  him  the  ten  thousand  precepts  of  my  Torah  "  (not 
"my  Torah  in  ten  thousand  precepts,"  as  Professor  Smith  has  it)  by 
the  very  hypothesis  avers  that  there  is  such  a  Law  to  write.  But  the 
past  tense  of  the  verb  in  the  second  clause  stands  in  the  way  of  the 
hypothetical  construction,  and  makes  it,  if  not  absolutely  certain,  yet 


ON   THE  PENTATEUCH.  115 

written  law  of  very  considerable  extent.  This  must 
have  related  in  part,  as  the  connection  implies,  to 
altars  and  sacrifices,  and  no  doubt  embraced  the 
duties  which  the  people  are  elsewhere  charged  with 
violating.  (Compare  also  Hos.  iv.  6,  viii.  i  ;  Am.  il.  4.) 
We  learn  from  Hos.  11.  11,  Ix.  5,xil.  9;  Am.  v.  21,  viii. 
5,  that  the  annual  feasts,  new-moons,  Sabbaths,  and 
festive  assemblies  were  observed  in  Israel,  and  held  in 
high  esteem,  and  that  they  occupied  a  prominent 
place  in  the  life  of  the  people,  so  that  their  abolition 
would  be  reckoned  a  serious  disaster.  We  read  also 
(Am.  V.  22;   Hos.  viii.    13)  of  burnt-offerings,   meat- 

highly  probable  on  grammatical  grounds  alone  that  it  is  historical,  and 
that  the  future  in  the  first  clause  is  to  be  explained  as  in  Ps.  ciii.  7. 
To  this  add  the  incongruities  which  attend  the  hypothetical  explana- 
tion. Why  speak  of  imposing  ten  thousand  requireraents,  as  though 
these  would  be  more  likely  to  secure  obedience  than  a  smaller  num- 
ber ?  and  why  of  writing  instead  of  enjoining  or  declaring  the  Law  ? 
The  very  mode  of  putting  the  hypothesis  implies  that  written  law  was 
a  familiar  idea,  that  law  to  have  its  highest  validity  should  be  in  writ- 
ten form  ;  and  such  a  notion  could  only  be  begotten  of  usage.  So  that 
Smend  gives  up  the  hypothetical  construction  as  untenable  ("Moses 
apud  Prophetas,"  p.  13):  "The  words  of  Hosea  prove  that  the 
Ephraimites  had  many  written  laws  in  the  eighth  century,  which, 
whether  contained  in  onQ  or  more  books,  although  they  were  neglected 
by  a  large  part  of  the  people,  were  yet  known  to  all,  and  in  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Prophet  demanded  the  obedience  of  all,  since  they  were 
of  divine  obligation,  as  much  so  as  if  written  by  Jehovah  himself." 
Nowack,  one  of  the  most  recent  commentators  on  Hosea,  confesses 
that  this  verse  is  not  hypothetical,  but  seeks  to  bend  it  to  the  views  of 
the  latest  critical  school,  by  giving  to  the  first  verb  a  progressive  sense, 
I  am  wj'iting,  as  implying  that  the  legislation  was  not  given  at  one  time 
in  the  age  of  Moses,  but  was  gradually  produced  from  that  time  for- 
ward. Perhaps  he  infers  from  the  creating,  in  Isai.  xlii.  5,  that  in  the 
Prophet's  estimation  the  work  of  creation  was  still  progressing,  and 
that  he  thus  anticipated  the  cosmical-devclopmcnt  hypothesis. 


il6       PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

offerings,  peace-offerings ;  (Am.  iv.  5)  thank-offerings, 
free-will-offerings;  (Hos.  ix.  4)  drink-offerings;  (Am. 
iv.  4)  the  daily  morning  sacrifice.  Hos.  iv.  8  alludes  to 
the  law  of  the  sin-offering;  Hos.  ix.  3,  4  to  the  law  of 
clean  and  unclean  meats.  Instead  of  the  simplicity  of 
worship,  which  the  Professor  finds  represented  in  the 
first  legislation  and  in  Deuteronomy,  and  which  he 
would  have  us  believe  prevailed  until  the  Babylonish 
exile,  they  must  have  had  an  elaborate  ritual  closely 
corresponding  to  the  Levitical  institutions.  So  that 
Smend  himself  says  (**  Moses  apud  Prophetas,"  p. 
75)  :  *'  It  is  sufficiently  evident  that  the  cultus  of 
Jehovah,  as  it  existed  in  the  time  of  the  earlier  Proph- 
ets, and  doubtless  long  before,  is  by  no  means  at 
variance  with  the  character  of  Leviticus.  Whatever 
judgment  may  be  formed  of  the  age  of  this  book,  the 
opinions  hitherto  entertained  of  the  birth,  growth, 
and  maturity  of  the  religion  of  Israel  will  undergo  no 
change." 

In  Hos.  vi.  6  ("  I  desired  mercy  and  not  sacrifice,") 
the  very  next  clause  shows  that  the  negation  is  not 
absolute,  (*'  and  the  knowledge  of  God  more  than 
burnt-offerings  ").^     This  affords  a  very  simple  key  to 

1  It  is  remarkable  how  many  allusions  to  the  Deuteronomic  and 
Levitical  codes  there  are  in  Hosea  and  Amos,  and  even  striking  coin- 
cidences of  language.  In  addition  to  those  already  cited  in  the  text, 
the  following  may  be  mentioned  as  among  the  most  obvious.  The  law 
of  the  unity  of  the  Sanctuary  is  presupposed  in  charging  them  with  sin 
for  multiplying  altars  (Hos.  viii.  ii,  xii.  ii) ;  the  prohibition  of  remov- 
ing landmarks  (Deut.  xix.  14,  xxvii.  17)  is  referred  to  Hos.  v.  10;  iv.  4, 
the  final  reference  of  causes  in  dispute  to  the  priest,  refusal  to  hear 
whom  was  a  capital  offence,  (Deut.  xvii.  12) ;  viii.  13,  ix.  3,  penalty  of 
a  return  to  Egypt  (Deut.  xxviii.  68)  ;  ix.  4,  defilement  from  the  dead 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH. 


117 


the  passages  with  which  the  Professor  confronts  us  on 
page  287,  and  which  he  interprets  to  mean  that  in  the 
judgment  of  the  Prophets  *'  sacrifice  is  not  necessary 
to  acceptable  rehgion."  '*  Amos  proves  God's  indif- 
ference to  ritual  by  reminding  the  people  that  they 
offered  no  sacrifice  and  offerings  to  Him  in  the  Wilder- 
ness during  those  forty  years  of  wandering  which  he 

(Num.  xix.  14,  22  ;  Deut.  xxvi.  14);  ix.  10,  Baal-peor  (Num.  xxv.  3,  5), 
which  is  a  Levitical  passage  (p.  433);  x.  11  (compare  Deut.  xxv.  4), 
the  ox  not  to  be  muzzled  when  treading  out  corn;  vi.  11,  Am.  ix.  14, 
"return  the  captivity,"  (Deut.  xxx.  3).  Amos  though  delivering  his 
message  in  Bethel,  knows  but  one  sanctuary,  that  in  Zion  (i.  2) ;  ii.  7, 
the  law  of  incest  (Lev.  xx.  11  ;  Deut.  xxii.  30);  ii.  11,  12,  Nazarites, 
(Num.  vi.  2,  3),  and  Prophets  (Deut.  xviii.  15);  iv.  4,  triennial  tithes 
(Deut.  xiv.  28,  xxvi.  12),  for  which  in  their  excess  of  zeal  they  may 
substitute  tithes  every  three  days ;  viii.  5,  falsifying  the  ephah,  shekel, 
and  balances  (Lev.  xix.  36;  Deut.  xxv.  13,  ff.) ;  ii.  7,  "to  profane  My 
holy  name  "  (Lev.  xx.  3) ;  ii.  9,  compare  Num.  xiii.  32,  -^y,  v.  11,  ix. 
14,  compare  Deut.  xxviii.  30,  39;  vi.  14,  "entering  in  of  Hamath  " 
(Num.  xxxiv.  8) ;  ix.  13  compare.  Lev.  xxvi.  5.  Prof.  W.  R.  Smith  de- 
duces from  Hos.  iii.  4 the  inference  (p.  226)  that  "sacrifice  and  ma((eba, 
ephod  and  teraphim,  were  recognized  as  the  necessary  forms  and  instru- 
ments of  the  worship  of  Jehovah."  This  finds  its  sufficient  reply  in  his 
own  note  upon  this  passage  (p.  423),  according  to  which  Jehovah"  breaks 
off  all  intercourse  betioecn  Israel  and  the  Baalir?i  "  as  well  as  between 
Israel  and  himself.  That  teraphim  are  spoken  of  in  connection  with 
Jacob,  and  were  found  in  David's  house,  only  shows  that  their  wives 
were  not  free  from  superstitious  practices.  That  Micah  had  them  in  his 
idolatrous  sanctuary  (Judg.  xviii.  14,  ff.)  can  surely  create  no  embar- 
rassment. And  if  Micah's  Levite,  as  he  adds  in  the  same  connection 
(p.  227),  was  really  a  "grandson  of  Moses,"  this  is  no  more  damaging 
to  the  great  legislator  than  it  is  to  Luther  that  his  descendants  have 
deserted  the  Protestant  faith,  or  than  it  is  to  Isaiah  that  he  once  sum- 
moned the  priest  Urijah  as  a  witness  to  certify  a  fact  (Isai.  viii.  2), — 
whence  the  Professor  dignifies  him  (p.  253)  with  the  title  of  Isaiah's 
"  friend,"  —  though  he  had  "  co-operated  with  King  Ahaz  "  in  a  change 
of  altars. 


1 1 8  PROF.  ROBER  TSON  SMITH 

elsewhere  cites  as  a  special  proof  of  Jehovah's  cove- 
nant grace  (Am.  ii.  lO,  v.  25).  Micah  declares  that 
Jehovah  does  not  require  sacrifice ;  He  asks  nothing 
of  His  people  but  '  to  do  justly,  and  love  mercy,  and 
walk  humbly  with  their  God'  (Mic.  vi.  8).  And 
Jeremiah  (vii.  2\,seq^  says  in  express  words,  etc.,  etc." 
(Compare  also  Isai.  i.  II,  i-^^. ;  Am.  v.  21,  i-^^.).  Am. 
V.  25  is  a  greatly  disputed  passage  and  has  been  very 
variously  understood.  It  is  unnecessary  to  go  into  a 
discussion  of  its  meaning  here.  If  we  accept  the 
sense  which  the  Professor  puts  upon  its  terms,  it  will 
simply  mean  that  the  Mosaic  system  of  sacrifice  did  not 
go  into  full  and  developed  operation  in  the  Wilder- 
ness ;  a  fact  of  which  we  have  hints  elsewhere  {e.  g. 
Deut.  xii.  8,  9),  and  which  is  implied  in  the  language 
of  several  of  the  laws  themselves  (Ex.  xii.  25,  xxxiv. 
12;  Lev.  xiv.  34,  xxiii.  10,  xxv.  2,  etc.  etc.)  But 
the  Professor's  deduction  from  these  passages  is  too 
sweeping  for  his  own  theory.  If  they  are  irreconci- 
lable with  the  idea  that  any  divine  law  of  sacrifice 
then  existed,  they  will  not  only  abolish  Leviticus,  as 
he  contends,  but  the  first  legislation  as  well  (Ex.  xxii. 
30,  xxiii.  14-18,  xxxiv.  19,  25),  and  Deuteronomy 
(xii.  6,   II,  27,  XV.   19,  xvi.  2,  etc. ),^  of  which  Jere- 

1  The  Professor  thinks  that  the  mode  of  observing  the  Passover 
underwent  a  change  between  the  time  of  the  Deuteronomic  Law  and 
the  Levitical  Code  as  represented  in  Ex.  xii.  3  ff.  He  says  that  under 
the  former  (p.  371)  "  the  paschal  victim  itself  may  be  chosen  indiffer- 
ently from  the  flock  or  the  herd  (xvi.  2),  and  is  still,  according  to  the 
Hebrew  of  xvi.  7,  presumed  to  be  boiled,  not  roasted,  as  is  the  case  in 
all  old  sacrifices  of  which  the  history  speaks."  The  simple  solution 
of  which  is,  that  at  the  Passover  there  were  sacrificed  not  only  the 
paschal  lamb  with  which  the  feast  began,  but  (Num.  xxviii.  19,  24) 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH. 


119 


miah  is  the  acknowledged  champion,  some  adventu- 
rous critics  having  actually  claimed  that  he  wrote  it 
himself;  and  even  nullify  the  plea  which  the  Lord 
directed  Moses  to  urge  with  Pharaoh  as  a  reason 
for  leaving  Egypt  *'  that  we  may  sacrifice  to  the  Lord 
our  God"  (Ex.  iii.  18),  which  is  not  classed  among 
the  Levitical  passages  (p.  432). 

Our  space  will  not  permit  us  to  trace  the  Mosaic 
codes  through  the  rest  of  the  Prophets.  But  one  view 
is  common  to  them  all, — Jehovah's  seat  is  in  Zion^ 
(Joel  ii.  15,  fif.,  iii.  21  ;  Mic.  iv.  I,  fif.).  Isaiah  leaves  us 
in  no  doubt  as  to  the  place  of  Jehovah's  Sanctuary. 

"  two  young  bullocks  and  one  ram  and  seven  lambs  "  day  by  day  on 
each  of  the  seven  days  during  which  the  festival  lasted.  The  same 
Hebrew  word  is  translated  "  roast  "  (Deut.  xvi.  7)  and  "sodden  "  (Ex. 
xii.  9),  being  in  fact  a  general  term  applicable  to  any  style  of  cooking. 
But  there  is  no  discrepancy  in  the  statements  made.  According  to  the 
passage  in  Exodus,  it  was  not  to  be  "  cooked  in  water,  but  roast  with 
fire,"  not  boiled,  therefore,  but  subjected  to  the  direct  action  of  the 
fire.  According  to  Deuteronomy  it  was  to  be  "  cooked,"  /.  e.,  not  raw, 
but  the  mode  of  preparation  is  not  more  particularly  specified.  That 
the  term  employed  includes  roasting  is,  however,  obvious  from  ii. 
Chron.  xxxv.  13,  where  "cooked  with  fire,"  i.  e.  roast,  stands  opposed 
to  "  cooked  in  pots  and  in  caldrons,"  i.  e.  boiled. 

1  The  sole  prophetic  utterance  which  bears  the  semblance  of  ap- 
proving a  plurality  of  sanctuaries  is  the  complaint  of  Elijah,  "  They 
have  thrown  down  thine  altars  "  (i.  Kings,  xix.  10).  But  in  the  anoma- 
lous condition  of  the  Northern  Kingdom,  cut  off  from  access  to  the 
Temple  at  Jerusalem,  it  is  not  surprising  if  the  fearers  of  Jehovah 
maintained  his  worship  in  local  sanctuaries.  And  the  hostility  to 
Jehovah's  service,  which  overthrew  these  altars,  was  not  palliated  by 
the  fact  that,  from  a  strictly  legal  point  of  view,  they  were  unauthor- 
ized. We  might  be  indignant  at  an  infidel  government  for  suppressing 
the  Roman  Catholic  worship,  without  approving  of  the  celebration  of 
the  Mass.  Elijah's  own  sacrifice  at  Carmel  was  by  immediate  divine 
direction  (i.  Kings,  xviii.  36). 


120       PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

Not  only  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  to  whose  reform  he 
doubtless  contributed,  but  from  the  outset  of  his 
ministry  under  Uzziah  he  declares  his  mind  on  this 
subject  in  unambiguous  language.  Zion  is  the  Moun- 
tain of  the  Lord,  which  shall  be  so  conspicuously 
exalted,  and  shall  be  the  resort  of  all  nations,  and 
from  which  God's  Law  shall  go  forth  (ii.  2,  3).  It  is 
upon  Zion  that  He  shall  create  a  cloud  and  smoke  by 
day  and  a  flaming  fire  by  night,  a  glory  and  a  de- 
fence (iv.  5).  In  the  year  that  King  Uzziah  died  he 
had  the  sublime  vision  of  Jehovah,  whom  he  saw  in 
the  Temple,  and  his  lips  were  purged  by  a  coal  from 
the  altar  (vi.  i,  ff.).  It  was  when  Sennacherib  pre- 
sumed to  shake  his  hand  against  the  Mount  of  the 
Daughter  of  Zion  that  his  doom  was  sealed  (x.  32 ; 
compare,  II.  Kings,  xix.  34).  Zion  is  "  the  city  of  our 
solemnities  "  whose  protection  is  secured  by  the  pres- 
ence of  Jehovah  (xxxiii.  20).  He  repudiates  a  plu- 
rality of  altars  (xvii.  8),  which  with  him  has  only 
idolatrous  associations ;  such  an  altar  has  no  sacred- 
ness  beyond  mere  chalk-stones  (xxvii.  9).  He  pre- 
dicts the  time  when  there  shall  be  **  an  altar  to 
Jehovah  in  the  midst  of  the  land  of  Egypt"  (xix. 
19),  as  a  symbol  that  this  land  shall  be  as  truly  as 
Canaan  the  Lord's  land,  and  its  people  the  Lord's 
people.  Like  Mai.  i.  11,  it  is  one  of  the  prophetic 
intimations  of  the  passing  away  of  the  local  and 
national  restrictions  of  the  former  dispensation.  But 
that  Isaiah  had  no  thought  of  a  separatist  worship 
appears  from  ii.  3,  where  the  same  truth  is  clothed  in 
the  more  strictly  Old  Testament  form  of  all  nations 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH.  I2I 

making  their  pilgrimages  to  Zion.  The  Lord  cannot 
tolerate  ritual  observances  as  an  offset  to  wicked  lives 
(i.  II,  ff.)  ;  but  He  has  the  same  disgust  for  prayer  (i. 
15)  and  the  language  of  the  lips  (xxix.  13)  similarly 
offered.  There  is  no  depreciation  of  sacrificial  wor- 
ship in  this,  for  the  acceptable  service  that  Egypt  will 
one  day  render  unto  God  is  described  by  saying, 
"  They  shall  do  sacrifice  and  oblation ;  they  shall 
vow  a  vow  and  perform  it "  (xix.  21). 

But  does  not  Isaiah  in  the  same  connection  predict 
"  a  pillar  "  {inaqqeba)  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  the  very 
symbol  which  Deut.  xvi.  22  forbids?  **  This  pas- 
sage," says  Professor  Smith  (p.  354),  "  gives  a  superior 
limit  for  the  date  of  the  Deuteronomic  Code." 
''  Isaiah  could  not  refer  to  a  forbidden  symbol  as  a 
mag^eba  to  Jehovah."  There  is  a  slight  confusion  of 
ideas  here.  In  the  first  place,  it  proves  too  much. 
This  symbol  was  prohibited  likewise  by  the  first  legis- 
lation (Ex.  xxiii.  24,  xxxiv.  13,  where  for  "images" 
read  ''pillars"),  which  required  the  destruction  of 
Canaanitish  altars  and  pillars,  not  their  purification 
and  rededication  to  the  service  of  God.  Secondly, 
the  thing  forbidden  was  the  erection  of  pillars  in  the 
neighborhood  of  altars  with  the  view  of  worshipping 
them  (Lev.  xxvi.  i  ;  Deut.  xvi.  21,  22).  Moses  him- 
self had  set  up  twelve  pillars  about  the  altar  at  the 
ratification  of  the  covenant  with  Jehovah  (Ex.  xxiv. 
4),  each  tribe,  as  it  were,  erecting  its  memorial  on  that 
solemn  occasion.  Stone  monuments  to  commemorate 
God's  goodness  or  to  mark  signal  events  were  repeat- 
edly erected   in  post-Mosaic  times.     When  this  was 


122        PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH   . 

done  with  no  view  to  sacrifice  or  adoration,  it  was  no 
violation  of  the  Pentateuchal  statute.  The  monu- 
mental pillar,  of  which  the  Prophet  speaks,  at  the 
border  of  Egypt,  had  no  connection  with  the  altar 
which  was  to  be  in  the  midst  of  the  land.  It  simply- 
marked  the  sacred  character  of  Egypt,  and  was  not 
intended  for  any  idolatrous  purpose. 

But  Ezekiel  is  the  great  stronghold  of  the  hypothesis 
which' we  are  considering.  Here,  we  are  told,  we  can 
see  the  very  process  of  the  formation  of  the  Levitical 
Law.  The  Prophet  is  convinced,  by  the  failure  of  all 
his  predecessors  to  reclaim  the  wayward  people,  that 
a  new  departure  must  be  made.  A  barrier  must  be 
erected  to  shut  out  heathen  influence,  and  to  confine 
Israel  rigidly  to  the  service  of  Jehovah.  Acting  on 
this  idea,  he  lays  down  (chs.  xl.-xlviii.)  a  ritual  to  be 
observed  on  the  return  from  Exile,  in  which  the  wor- 
ship which  had  hitherto  been  spontaneous  and  free 
is  reduced  to  a  fixed  and  unvarying  form,  and  all 
the  ceremonies  are  described  in  minute  detail.  This 
scheme  of  the  cultus  at  the  Sanctuary  was  enlarged 
and  modified  by  Ezra,  and  thus  arose  the  Levitical 
Law,  which  he  brought  forward  in  its  completed 
form,  and  which  thenceforth  became  the  law  of  Is- 
rael's worship.  Ezekiel's  projected  system  represents 
a  stage  between  the  simplicity  of  the  former  cultus 
and  the  greater  complexity  of  the  Levitical  legisla- 
tion. 

These  closing  chapters  of  Ezekiel,  where  it  is  pro- 
posed to  find  the  key  to  the  origin  of  the  middle 
books  of  the  Pentateuch,  have  always  been  a  puzzle 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH.  123 

to  commentators.  And  a  hypothesis  which  professes 
to  relieve  them  of  all  mystery  (p.  374),  to  accept 
them  in  their  most  obvious  sense,  and  to  suggest  a 
sufficient  reason  for  those  various  regulations  and  an 
important  purpose  to  be  answered  by  them,  thus 
converting  what  has  seemed  like  a  barren  waste  into 
a  fruitful  field,  can  scarcely  fail  to  attract  attention  if 
it  has  the  slightest  plausibility.  Some  perplexities, 
however,  force  themselves  upon  us  in  advance. 

I.  There  are  items  in  Ezekiel's  description  of  the 
Sanctuary,  the  worship,  and  the  Holy  Land  of  the  fu- 
ture, which  can  scarcely  have  been  intended  to  be 
literally  understood,  but  seem  to  have  been  intro- 
duced for  the  sake  of  giving  an  ideal  character  to  the 
entire  section.  Zion  could  not  possibly  be  called  "  a 
very  high  mountain"  (xl.  2),  unless  with  a  view 
to  the  exaltation  promised  Isai.  ii.  2,  and  assumed 
Ezek.  xvii.  22,  23.  Its  utmost  extent  could  not 
afford  a  site  for  a  sacred  enclosure  measuring  500 
reeds  or  3000  cubits,  i.  e.,  nearly  a  mile  on  each  of 
its  four  sides  (xlii.  16  ff.).  The  critics  have  been  at 
great  pains  to  correct''  reeds"  into  "■  cubits,"  in  order 
to  bring  it  within  some  reasonable  probability;  but 
this  is  directly  in  the  face  of  the  repeated  statements 
of  the  text.  The  entrance  of  Jehovah's  glory  into 
the  House  represents  a  spiritual  fact,  not  an  occur- 
rence in  the  form  exhibited  in  the  vision  (xliii.  2-4). 
The  stream  flowing  from  the  Sanctuary  (xlvii.  1-12), 
swelling  as  it  advanced,  and  carrying  life,  fertility, 
and  healing  even  to  the  desert  and  the  Dead  Sea,  is 
manifestly  symbolical,  and  can  no  more  represent  an 


124       PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

actual  river  than  its  counterpart  in  Rev.  xxii.  i  ff. 
The  symmetrical  division  of  the  land  parcelled  among 
the  tribes  in  parallel  strips,  with  a  holy  oblation  unto 
the  Lord  in  the  centre,  is  as  unpractical  as  possible, 
and,  in  the  case  of  the  tribes  located  to  the  south, 
assumes  a  complete  reclaiming  of  the  arid  desert. 
It  is  as  plainly  ideal  as  the  uniform  numbers  of  the 
tribes  in  Rev.  vii.  5  ff.,  or  as  the  resurrection  of  the 
dry  bones  (Ezek.  xxxvii.  iff.)  and  the  destruction 
of  Gog  (xxxix.  9  ff.),  which  are  preliminary  to  these 
closing  chapters. 

2.  These  directions  of  Ezekiel  were  not  in  fact 
obeyed  by  the  returning  exiles,  which  shows  that 
their  intention,  as  understood  by  those  immediately 
addressed,  was  not  to  guide  the  present  but  to  fore- 
cast the  future.  The  temple  of  Zerubbabel  was  not 
built  by  Ezekiel's  plan ;  nor  did  its  cultus  or  the 
partition  of  the  land  correspond  with  the  model 
sketched   by  him. 

3.  If  the  Levitical  Law  was  based  upon  that  of 
Ezekiel,  why  did  it  not  adopt  the  regulations  given 
by  him,  instead  of  departing  from  them  so  often  and 
so  capriciously,  as  it  Vv^ould  seem?  Why,  for  exam- 
ple, was  the  burnt-offering  of  seven  bullocks  and 
seven  rams,  prescribed  by  Ezekiel  (xlv.  23-25)  for 
each  of  the  seven  days  of  Passover,  and  of  the  Feast 
of  Tabernacles,  converted  into  two  bullocks,  one  ram, 
and  seven  lambs  daily  at  the  Passover  (Num.  xxviii. 
19,  24),  and  thirteen  bullocks,  two  rams,  and  fourteen 
lambs  on  the  first  day  of  Tabernacles,  to  be  repeated 
from  day  to  day,  with  a  gradually  diminishing  num^ 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH.  125 

ber  of  bullocks,  to  the  end  (xxix.  13  ff.)?  We  can 
understand  how  a  Prophet,  speaking  in  the  name  of 
God  and  presaging  the  Church  of  the  future,  could 
freely  modify  the  established  Mosaic  ritual  for  the 
very  purpose  of  intimating  that  the  forms  of  the  old 
Law  were  not  immutable  and  would  one  day  suffer 
change ;  but  this  recent  hypothesis  is  quite  incompre- 
hensible, —  that,  after  Ezekiel  had  with  divine  author- 
ity proclaimed  a  new  and  elaborate  ritual,  it  should 
have  been  altered  and  added  to  and  subtracted  from 
by  the  priesthood  in  numberless  particulars  before  it 
was  set  in  operation. 

4.  It  is  not  very  clear  that  the  time  when  the 
ceremonial  had  been  for  the  present  providentially 
abolished  was  the  one  for  doing  what,  by  the  hypoth- 
esis, had  never  been  done  so  long  as  the  Temple  stood 
and  the  priests  were  performing  its  daily  service, 
viz.,  prepare  a  complete  formulary  for  its  worship. 
One  would  think  that  there  were  more  practical  and 
pressing  needs  of  the  exiles  than  this.  But  if  Ezekiel 
did  undertake  to  do  it,  it  is  strange  that  the  larger 
part  of  his  scheme  is  occupied  with  an  utterly  abor- 
tive, though  most  minute,  description  of  a  temple, 
which  did  not  so  differ  from  the  plan  of  Solomon's  as 
to  further  any  important  end.  And,  stranger  still, 
the  Levitical  Law,  which  was  meant  to  be  an  improve- 
ment upon  Ezekiel,  instead  of  giving  the  exiles  intel- 
ligible directions  for  the  rebuilding  of  their  temple, 
substitutes  an  almost  interminable  account  of  the 
Tabernacle  in  the  Wilderness,  which  is  a  pure  fancy 
sketch  of  a  structure  that  never  existed. 


126  PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

5.  The  so-called  Torah  of  Ezekiel  was  issued  with 
his  own  name,  as  revealed  to  himself.  There  was  no 
"  legal  fiction  "  in  the  case,  and  no  pretence  of  being 
from  Moses  ;  which  is  an  additional  warrant  for  believ- 
ing that  any  other  law  published  at  that  time  or  sub- 
sequently, by  competent  authority,  would  not  have 
appeared  under  an  assumed  name,  but  have  frankly 
and  honestly  announced  the  authority  from  which  it 
proceeded,  and  on  which  it  rested  its  claim  to  be 
obeyed. 

6.  And  we  are  still  further  puzzled  to  understand 
how  the  new  ritual  could  have  been  gotten  into  ope- 
ration under  the  circumstances.  By  the  hypothesis, 
it  was  a  totally  new  departure  made  under  false  pre- 
tences. Every  one  knew  that  it  was  not  only  not 
Mosaic,  but  was  diametrically  opposed  to  the  Mosaic 
system.  All  the  prejudices  that  clung  to  the  ancient 
ritual  were  opposed  to  it.  So  were  the  class  interests 
of  the  priests,  who,  it  is  alleged,  were  now  degraded 
from  their  former  prerogatives  to  the  inferior  role  of 
Levites ;  and  the  attachments  to  local  sanctuaries, 
which  it  is  supposed  were  now  summarily  abolished. 
And  when  v/e  remember  the  persistence  with  which 
open  idolaters  faced  Jeremiah,  and  even  carried  their 
point  in  spite  of  his  remonstrances  (Jer.  xliii.  2  ff. ; 
xliv.  15  ff.),  the  opposition  from  these  various  quar- 
ters could  not  have  been  slight.  The  new  Law  could 
not  have  gained  prevalence  from  the  authority  of 
Ezekiel,  for  it  freely  deviates  from  the  Law  which  he 
had  given.  It  ran  directly  counter  to  the  instructions 
of  Jeremiah,  as   these   are  interpreted  to  us  by  the 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH.  127 

advocates  of  the  new  hypothesis,  for  ''  he  knew  no 
divine  law  of  sacrifice  under  the  First  Temple  "  (p. 
374) ;  counter  also  to  Isai.  Ixvi.  1-3,  which,  on  the 
Professor's  critical  principles,  was  by  a  Prophet  of  the 
Captivity  later  even  than  Ezekiel,  in  which,  upon 
the  same  method  of  interpretation,  Jehovah  repu- 
diates all  earthly  sanctuaries  and  sacrificial  rites. 
And  yet,  in  spite  of  all  these  elements  of  a  formida- 
ble opposition,  the  Levitical  Law  was  no  sooner 
brought  forward  by  Ezra  than  it  was  at  once  ac- 
cepted and  submitted  to  as  "  the  Law  of  Moses, 
which  the  Lord  had  commanded  to  Israel"  (Neh. 
viii.  I,  14,  X.  29),  and  that,  too,  as  distinguished  from 
post-Mosaic  enactments  (xii.  45). 

But  waiving  these  difficulties  of  a  general  nature, 
how  is  it  with  those  particulars  in  the  Torah  of  Ezek- 
iel, which  recent  critics  affirm  must  have  preceded 
the  Law  of  Leviticus?  We  quote  from  Prof  Robert- 
son Smith  (p.  374) :  — 

"  The  first  that  strikes  us  is  the  degradation  of  the  Levites. 
The  ministers  of  the  old  Temple,  he  (Ezekiel)  tells  us,  were 
uncircumcised  foreigners,^  whose  presence  was  an  insult  to 

1  The  allegation  that  "  uncircumcised  foreigners  "  were  employed  to 
"keep  the  ward  of  the  Sanctuary"  .  .  .  "  as  long  as  Solomon's  Tem- 
ple stood  "  (p.  250)  is  based  on  an  extraordinary  series  of  non  sequiturs. 
David's  body-guard  of  Kercthim  and  Pelethim  has  been  conjectured  to 
be  "Cretans  and  Philistines,"  on  the  basis  of  a  doubtful  etymology, 
which  was  not  accepted  by  Gesenius,  and  has  not  been  by  the  sul:>se- 
quent  editors  of  his  Lexicon.  The  mention  of  "Carians,"  either  in 
II.  Sam.  XX.  23  or  11.  Kings,  xi.  4,  is  much  more  doubtful  and  improbable 
still.  The  men  "  who  were  clad  in  foreign  garb,  and  leaped  over  the 
threshold  "  (Zeph.  i.  8,  9),  has  nothing  in  the  world  to  do  with  "  Philis- 
tines "  or  "foreign  janissaries."    So  that  the  inference  that  these  imag- 


I  28  PROF,   ROBERTSON  SMITH 

Jehovah's  Sanctuary.  Such  men  shall  no  more  enter  the 
House,  but  in  their  places  shall  come  the  Levites  not  of  the 
House  of  Zadok,  who  are  to  be  degraded  from  the  priest- 
hood because  they  officiated  in  old  Israel  before  the  idola- 
trous shrines  (xliv.  5,  seq^.  This  one  point  is  sufficient  to 
fix  the  date  of  the  Levitical  Law  as  later  than  Ezekiel.  In 
all  the  earlier  history,  and  in  the  Code  of  Deuteronomy,  a 
Levite  is  a  priest,  or  at  least  qualified  to  assume  priestly 
functions ;  and  even  in  Josiah's  reformation  the  Levite  priests 
of  the  high  places  received  a  modified  priestly  status  at 
Jerusalem.  Ezekiel  knows  that  it  has  been  so  in  the  past ; 
but  he  declares  that  it  shall  be  otherwise  in  the  future,  as  a 
punishment  for  the  ofience  of  ministering  at  the  idolatrous 
altars.  He  knows  nothing  of  an  earlier  Law,  in  which  priests 
and  Levites  are  already  distinguished,  in  which  the  office  of 
Levite  is  itself  a  high  privilege." 

The  distinction  of  priests  and  Levites,  though 
rarely  alluded  to  in  the  pre-exilic  history,  since  there 
was  no  occasion  so  to  do,^  is  yet  explicitly  recognized 
in  I.  Sam.  vi.  15;   IL  Sam.  xv.  24;  I.  Kings,  viii.  4. 

inary  foreign  guards  "are  unquestionably  identical  with  the  uncircum- 
cised  foreigners  whom  Ezekiel  found  in  the  Temple  "  rests  merely  upon 
a  series  of  positive  but  unfounded  assertions.  The  unlawful  pres- 
ence of  uncircumcised  foreigners  in  the  Temple  is  of  a  piece  with  the 
open  practice  of  idolatrous  rites  within  those  sacred  precincts  (Ezek. 
viii.  3  ff. ;  II.  Kings,  xxi.  4  ff.).  This  shameless  violation  of  law  is  no 
proof  that  the  Law  was  not  in  existence.  The  Nethinim  (Ezra  viii.  20) 
and  children  of  Solomon's  servants  (ii.  58)  do  not  fall  under  the  same 
condemnation  (Neh.  x.  28,  29).  They  were,  no  doubt,  circumcised; 
and  performed  such  menial  services  for  the  Levites  as  were  permissible 
for  proselyted  foreigners  (Josh.  ix.  27). 

1  The  distinction  is  not  even  made  in  Malachi  (see  ii.  4-8,  iii.  3), 
though  he  could  not,  on  any  critical  hypothesis,  have  been  ignorant  of 
its  existence. 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH.  1 29 

Upon  the  first  return  of  the  exiles  under  Zerubbabel, 
ninety  years  before  the  alleged  date  of  the  Levitical 
Law,  we  not  only  find  priests  and  Levites  sharply 
distinguished  and  separately  enumerated,  but  distinc- 
tions are  made  among  the  Levites  themselves,  who  are 
variously  classed,  as  by  hereditary  descent,  singers, 
porters,  etc.  (Ezra  ii.  36  ff. ;  Neh.  vii.  39  ff.,  xii.  1-9). 
Compare  also  the  account  of  the  first  inhabitants  of 
Jerusalem  after  the  Exile  (l.  Chron.  ix.  2  ff.).  The 
same  thing  recurs  upon  the  going  up  of  Ezra,  four- 
teen years  before  the  supposed  origin  of  the  Levitical 
Law  (Ezra  vii.  7,  24,  viii.  15  ff.).  These  distinctions 
cannot  have  been  introduced  by  Ezekiel's  Torah ; 
they  could  not  have  arisen  in  the  Exile,  when  there 
was  no  temple  service  and  no  occasion  for  singers  and 
porters.  They  must,  of  necessity,  have  been  trans- 
mitted from  the  period  before  the  Exile,  and  repre- 
sent the  distribution  of  functions  then  made  among 
those  that  were  employed  at  the  Sanctuary.  Priests 
and  Levites  must,  therefore,  have  had  separate  duties 
and  formed  distinct  classes  while  Solomon's  Temple 
still  stood.  But  further,  the  subdivisions  of  the  Le- 
vites above  referred  to  are  also  unknown  to  the  Levit- 
ical Law,  which  apportions  them  in  quite  a  different 
manner,  having  no  possible  relation  to  post-exilic 
times,  but  only  to  the  wandering  in  the  Wilderness, 
viz.,  the  functions  which  they  severally  performed  in 
the  transportation  of  the  Tabernacle  and  its  furniture 
(Num.  iv.). 

Again,  that  the  Levitical  Law  of  the  priesthood 
was  prior  to  Ezekiel,  and  not  vice  versa,  appears  from 


130  PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

the  nature  of  the  case.  While  the  former  limits  the 
priesthood  to  the  family  of  Aaron,  Ezekiel  goes  still 
further,  and  restricts  it  for  cause  to  the  line  of  Zadok, 
one  of  his  descendants.^  While  the  Levitical  Law 
does  not  define  the  sanctuary  duties  of  the  Levites, 
but  leaves  them,  as  they  might  naturally  be  left  at 
the  outset,  to  perform  such  services  as  the  priest 
might  require  of  them  (Num.  xviii.  2),  long  usage 
gradually  assigned  to  them  specific  tasks,  as  the 
charge  of  the  gates,  slaying  the  sacrifices,  boiling 
their  flesh,  etc.  (il.  Chron.  xxiii.  4,  xxx.  17,  xxxv.  13)  ; 
and  this  is  what  Ezekiel  expects  them  to  do  (xliv. 
II,  xlvi.  24).  Indeed,  Ezekiel  seems  to  make  allu- 
sion to  the  Levitical  Law  in  the  very  passage  under 
discussion.  He  calls  the  employment  of  the  uncir- 
cumcised  foreigners  in  the  Temple  a  breach  of  God's 
Covenant  (xliv.  7).  It  was,  therefore,  in  his  eyes, 
the  violation  of  a  positive  divine  statute,  which  can 
only  be  Num.  xviii.  4  where  any  "■  stranger,"  i.  e., 
non-Levite,  is  prohibited  from  doing  the  work  as- 
signed to  Levites.  And  if  Levite  had  always,  prior 
to  the  time  of  Ezekiel,  been  synonymous  with 
**  priest,"  or  at  least  denoted  one  who  is  "  qualified 
to  assume  priestly  functions,"  it  is  remarkable  that 

1  It  has,  indeed,  been  denied  that  Zadok  (i.  Kings,  ii.  35)  was  of  the 
seed  of  Aaron.  But  such  a  groundless  denial  of  what  is  explicitly  set- 
tled by  his  genealogy  (i.  Chron.  vi.  8,  53,  xxiv.  3,  xxvii.  17)  is  fitly 
characterized  by  Delitzsch  as  "manufacturing  history."  And  how  the 
Levitical  regulation  could,  in  that  case,  have  been  built  upon  that  of 
Ezekiel,  and  the  restriction  of  the  priesthood  to  the  family  of  Zadok 
could  have  led  to  its  restriction  to  another  family  of  quite  different 
descent,  becomes  still  more  inexplicable. 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH.  131 

he  should  employ  it  as  he  does  without  any  modify- 
ing epithet  (xlviii.  Ii-I3),in  contrast  with  priests, 
and  in  the  sense  of  those  who  are  disqualified  from 
assuming  priestly  functions. 

"  A  second  point  in  Ezekiel's  Law  is  a  provision 
for  stated  and  regular  sacrifices."  Nehemiah  en- 
gages the  people  to  *'  a  voluntary  charge  of  a  third 
of  a  shekel  for  this  purpose  (Neh.  x.  32)."  *'  In 
Ex.  XXX.  16  the  service  of  the  Tabernacle  was  de- 
frayed by  the  fixed  tribute  of  half  a  shekel."  If  this 
"  refers  to  the  continual  sacrifices,"  it  differed  from 
Nehemiah's  rate  plainly  enough,  but  it  does  not  fol- 
low that  **  this  law,"  which  bears  no  evidence  of 
being  a  permanently  obligatory  precept,  ''was  still 
unknown  to  Nehemiah,  and  must  be  a  late  addition 
to  the  Pentateuch."  And,  on  the  other  hand,  if  it 
does  not  refer  to  them,  it  is  a  rash  and  unwarranted 
conclusion  on  the  part  of  the  Professor  that  stated 
offerings  were  ordained  with  no  provision  for  supply- 
ing them. 

"A  third  point  in  Ezekiel's  Law,"  and  the  last  which 
Prof.  W.  R.  Smith  insists  upon,  "  is  the  prominence  given  to 
the  sin-offering  and  atoning  ritual.  The  altar  must  be  purged 
with  sin-offerings  for  seven  consecutive  days  before  burnt 
sacrifices  are  acceptably  offered  on  it  (xliii.  18,  seq?).  The 
Levitical  Law  (Ex.  xxix.  36,  37)  prescribes  a  similar  cere- 
mony, but  with  more  costly  victims.  At  the  dedication  of 
Solomon's  Temple,  on  the  contrary  (i.  Kings,  viii.  62),  the  altar 
is  at  once  assumed  to  be  fit  for-  use,  in  accordance  ^vith  Ex. 
XX.  24,  and  with  all  the  early  cases  of  altar-building  outside 
the  Pentateuch.     But,  besides  this  first  expiatory  ceremonial, 


132       PROF,  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

Ezekiel  appoints  two  atoning  services  yearly,  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  first  and  the  seventh  month  (xlv.  19,  20,  LXX.), 
to  purge  the  house.  This  is  the  first  appearance,  outside  of 
the  Levitical  Code,  of  anything  corresponding  to  the  great 
Day  of  Atonement  in  the  seventh  month,  and  it  is  plain  that 
the  simple  service  in  Ezekiel  is  still  far  short  of  that  solemn 
ceremony.  The  Day  of  Atonement  was  also  a  fast  day. 
Now,  in  Zech.  vii.  5,  viii.  19,  the  Fast  of  the  Seventh  Month 
is  alluded  to  as  one  of  the  four  fasts  commemorating  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  which  had  been  practised  for  the 
last  seventy  years.  The  Fast  of  the  Seventh  Month  was  not 
yet  united  with  the  'purging  of  the  house,'  ordained  by  Eze- 
kiel. Even  in  the  great  convocation  of  Neh.  viii.-x.,  where 
we  have  a  record  of  proceedings  from  the  first  day  of  the 
seventh  month  onwards  to  the  twenty-fourth,  there  is  no 
mention  of  the  Day  of  Expiation  on  the  tenth,  which  thus 
appears  as  the  very  last  stone  in  the  ritual  edifice." 

Prof.  Robertson  Smith  affirms  that  there  were  no 
expiatory  rites  for  cleansing  the  altar  of  Solomon's 
Temple ;  but  the  sacred  historian,  in  explicit  terms, 
declares  the  very  reverse.  In  the  summary  account 
of  the  transaction  given  in  Kings,  the  order  of  the 
ceremonial  is  not  particularly  stated,  except  that 
the  services  were  continued  "  seven  days  and  seven 
days."  This  of  itself  suggests  a  distinction  between 
these  two  periods,  and  implies  that  there  was  a  week 
preliminary  to  the  proper  week  of  the  annual  feast; 
and  the  most  obvious  purpose  of  such  a  week  is  that 
of  sacrificial  purgation.  This  very  natural  presurrip- 
tion  is  confirmed  by  the  express  language  of  ii.  Chron. 
vii.  9 :  "  they  kept  the  dedication  of  the  altar  seven 
days,  and  the  feast  seven  days." 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH.  133 

The  Day  of  Atonement,  it  is  true,  is  not  mentioned 
by  Ezekiel,  but  his  silence  does  not  prove  that  he 
knew  nothing  of  it.  For  he  Hkewise  makes  no  allu- 
sion to  the  Feast  of  Weeks,  which  belonged  even  to 
the  first  legislation  (Ex.  xxiii.  16,  xxxiv.  22),  and 
this  though  he  speaks  of  Passover  and  Tabernacles 
(Ezek.  xlv.  21,  25).  He  does  not  allude  to  the  daily 
evening  sacrifice  (l.  Kings,  xviii.  29,  36 ;  II.  Kings,  xvi. 
15  ;  see  Ezek.  xlvi.  13  ff.)  ;  nor  to  the  high-priest  (  II. 
Kings,  xii.  7,  lO,  xxii.  4,  xxiii.  4)  ;  nor  to  the  priestly 
dues  enjoined  in  Deut.  xviii.  3,  (see  xliv.  28  fif.).  It  is 
also  true  that  no  mention  is  made  of  its  observance  in 
the  Old  Testament  history,  nor  in  fact  for  a  long  time 
after.  The  earliest  allusion  ^  to  it  is  by  Josephus 
(Ant.  xiv.  16,  4),  who  tells  us  that  Herod  took 
Jerusalem  (b.  C.  37)  on  the  solemnity  of  the  Fast, 
as  Pompey  had  done  twenty-seven  years  before. 
The  Feast  of  Weeks  is  spoken  of  but  once  between 
Moses  and  the  Exile  (l.  Kings,  ix.  25  ;  il.  Chron.  viii. 
13).  The  Sabbatical  Year  is  not  mentioned  until  the 
period  of  the  Maccabees  (l.  Mace.  vi.  53).  The  Fast 
of  the  Seventh  Month,  alluded  to  by  Zechariah,  in 
commemoration  of  the  murder  of  Gedaliah  (ll.  Kings, 
xxv.  25),  was  entirely  distinct  from  the  Annual  Hu- 
mihation  for  Sin.  The  Professor  seems  to  think  that 
the  Day  of  Atonement  was  not  instituted  for  some 
years  after  the  Levitical  Law  was  brought  out  by 
Ezra.     This  will    involve    him    in    fresh    difficulties ; 

1  It  is  perhaps  referred  to,  though  this  is  not  certain,  in  Josephus, 
Ant.  xiii.  10,  3,  where  the  high-priest  Hyrcanus  is  spoken  of  as  alone 
in  the  Temple,  offering  incense. 


I  34  PROF.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

for,  as  Delitzsch  remarks,  it  will  be  necessary  to 
exclude  from  Ezra's  Law  not  only  Lev.  xvi.,  where 
the  services  of  the  day  are  described  in  detail,  but 
also  all  the  allusions  to  it  elsewhere,  —  as  Ex.  xxx. 
lO,  which  speaks  of  one  annual  atonement;  Lev. 
xxiii.  26-32,  XXV.  9;  Num.  xviii.  7,  which  speaks  of 
a  priestly  duty  within  the  Veil ;  Num.  xxix.  7-1 1; 
and  all  passages  containing  the  name  given  to  the  lid 
of  the  Ark  in  consequence  of  the  expiation  effected 
there,  viz.,  the  Mercy-Seat;  and  it  would  be  very  ex- 
traordinary if  the  ritual  of  the  Day  of  Atonement, 
in  which  the  Mercy-seat  occupies  so  conspicuous  a 
place,  dated  from  a  time  when  the  Ark  and  Mercy- 
seat  had  ceased  to  exist. 

It  is  a  significant  fact  also  that  Ezekiel's  Torah  was 
revealed  to  him  (xl.  i)  ''in  the  beginning  of  the 
year,  in  the  tenth  day  of  the  month."  If  the  tenth 
of  Tisri,  the  first  of  the  civil  year,  be  meant,  this  was 
the  Day  of  Atonement,  and  likewise  the  day  on 
which  the  trumpet  was  blown  to  usher  in  the  Year 
of  Jubilee.  The  combination  of  this  day  with  the 
release  of  prisoners  is  clearly  shown  by  Isai.  Iviii.  6 ; 
and  that  the  Prophet  was  acquainted  with  the  Law 
(Lev.  XXV.  8-10)  is  shown  by  his  allusion  to  its 
terms  (Isai.  Ixi.  i  ff.).  Ezekiel  was  acquainted  with 
the  Year  of  Jubilee,  and  speaks  of  it  as  well  known, 
which  consequently  involves  a  knowledge  of  the  Day 
of  Atonement,  with  which  it  began.^ 

1  We  add  some  further  particulars  from  Delitzsch's  very  thorough 
and  satisfactory  discussion  of  the  Day  of  Atonement,  considered  in 
relation  to  this  recent  critical  hypothesis,  from  which  the  above  discus- 


ON  THE  PENTATEUCH.  135 

We  have  now  completed  our  task.  And  as  we  lay- 
down  our  pen,  may  we  not  say  of  this  latest  critical 
attempt  to  roll  the  Pentateuch  off  its  old  foundations, 
that  it  has  not  achieved  success?  It  has  enveloped 
Mount  Blanc  in  a  cloud  of  mist,  and  proclaimed 
that  its  giant  cliffs  had  forever  disappeared.  But,  lo  ! 
the  mist  blows  away,  and  the  everlasting  hills  are 
still  in  place. 

sion  of  this  point  has  been  for  the  most  part  borrowed.  The  word 
to12>  to  fast,  which  is  already  found  in  the  prophet  Joel,  is  foreign  to 
the  law  of  the  Day  of  Atonement;  the  standing  phrase  there  is 
11353  ri3^»  but  without  using  the  post-exilic  derivative  ri"':>n  (Ezra, 
ix.  5).  The  post-exilic  language  and  literature  offer  nothing  for  the 
explanation  of  ^titt^ ;  '^fiS'  opportune  obvhcs  (Lev.  xvi.  21)  and  v-i5$ 
r]*IT3  terra  obscissa  (ver.  22)  are  expressions  found  nowhere  else,  which, 
if  they  were  post-exilic,  might  have  been  expected  to  reappear  in  post* 
biblical  writings. 


THE   WORSHIP  IN   HIGH   PLACES. 

'THHE  period  covered  by  the  Books  of  Samuel  is 
-*-  so  important  in  its  bearing  on  the  question  of 
the  prior  existence  of  the  Law  of  Moses  as  to  require 
a  fuller  discussion  than  was  possible  within  the  nar- 
row limits  of  an  article  in  a  quarterly  review.  The 
proof  was  there  given  that  the  Mosaic  Tabernacle 
located  at  Shiloh  was  the  one  sole  place  of  regular 
sacrificial  worship,  from  the  time  when  it  was  set  up 
by  Joshua  until  the  capture  of  the  Ark  by  the  Philis- 
tines. It  was  resorted  to  by  all  Israel ;  the  feasts  of 
the  Lord  were  annually  observed  there ;  its  services 
were  conducted  by  a  priesthood  descended  from 
Aaron.  So  far  as  we  have  any  means  of  ascertain- 
ing, the  Mosaic  ritual  was  strictly  observed  there, 
the  contrary  assumption  being  altogether  gratuitous, 
since  all  the  alleged  departures  from  that  ritual  ad- 
mit of  ready  reconciliation  with  the  legal  require- 
ments. There  is  not,  from  Joshua  to  Samuel,  a 
recorded  instance  of  sacrifice  elsewhere  than  at  Shi- 
loh which  is  not  explicitly  declared  to  have  been 
offered  either  in  the  presence  of  the  Ark,  or  in  con- 
nection with  an  immediate  manifestation  of  the  pres- 


138         THE  WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES. 

ence  of  Jehovah  or  of  the  Angel  of  Jehovah.  And 
no  sacrifice  was  offered  by  any  one  not  a  descendant 
of  Aaron,  except  when  Jehovah  or  the  Angel  of 
Jehovah  had  appeared  to  him.  The  only  exceptions 
are  expressly  characterized  by  the  sacred  historian 
as  open  and  flagrant  transgressions  of  known  law,  — 
as  the  idolatry  at  Ophrah  (Judg.  viii.  27),  and  that 
of  the  renegade  Micah  (xvii.  5),  not  to  speak  of  the 
apostasy  to  Baal  and  Ashtoreth,  which  is  reprobated 
and  chastised  from  the  beginning  to  the  end.  The 
Book  of  Judges  does  not  contain  a  trace  of  sanc- 
tioned, or  even  tolerated,  worship  upon  high  places. 
The  test  applied  to  Israel  was  ''  to  know  whether  they 
would  hearken  unto  the  commandmefits  of  the  LORD, 
which  He  commanded  their  fathers  by  the  hand  of 
Moses"  (iii.  4).  The  hypothesis  of  Prof.  Robertson 
Smith  would  restrict  these  commandments  to  what 
he  denominates  "  the  first  legislation."  But  until  it 
can  be  shown  that  the  remaining  portions  of  the 
Mosaic  Code  were  not  enacted  at  the  time  when  they 
claim  to  have  been  given,  the  reference  must  be  un- 
derstood to  be  to  the  entire  Law  of  Moses,  —  a 
meaning  which  is  further  rendered  necessary  by  the 
constant  usage  of  this  and  of  equivalent  terms  in  the 
historical  books  of  Scripture  (ll.  Kings,  xxiii.  3,  25  ;  I. 
Kings,  ii.  3,  vi.  12,  ix.  4,  6,  xi.  33,  38 ;  compare  Deut. 
viii.  1 1,  xii.  i). 

We  approach  the  life  of  Samuel,  then,  from  this 
vantage  ground  afforded  by  the  entire  antecedent 
history.  The  unity  of  the  Sanctuary  was  unbroken 
from    Moses   to    Eli,   unless   by   confessed    idolaters. 


THE    WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES.         139 

And  the  accepted  Code  of  the  nation  was  the  Law 
of  Moses ;  and,  so  far  as  anything  yet  appears  to  the 
contrary,  that  Law  in  its  entire  extent.  This  was  still 
the  case  in  the  early  years  of  Samuel.  The  one  Sanc- 
tuary was  at  Shiloh.  It  had  its  Aaronic  priesthood. 
It  was  the  place  of  commanded  sacrifice  (i.  Sam.  ii. 
29).  There  Jehovah  dwelt  between  the  cherubim 
above  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  (iv.  4).  To  it  all 
Israel  went  to  pay  their  v/orship  (ii.  14,  29,  iii.  20,  21). 
Thither  the  child  Samuel  was  brought  by  his  parents 
to  appear  before  the  LORD,  and  with  the  expectation 
that  he  would  abide  there  forever  (i.  22).  But  the 
fatal  battle  at  Eben-ezer,  in  vrhich  the  Ark  was  lost, 
suddenly  changed  the  whole  aspect  of  affairs.  We 
never  find  Samuel,  or  the  Tabernacle,  or  a  priest,  or 
a  sacrifice  in  Shiloh  again  from  that  time  forward. 
Why  was  this? 

Whether  the  Philistines  extended  their  ravages  to 
Shiloh,  as  some  have  supposed,  or  not,  the  city  was 
thenceforth  regarded  as  deserted  of  God.  The  fact 
that  He  permitted  the  priests,  who  were  entrusted 
with  the  care  of  the  Ark,  to  be  slain,  and  the  Ark 
itself  to  be  carried  off  by  the  enemy,  was  accepted  as 
a  practical  declaration  that  the  Most  High  had  with- 
drawn His  presence  from  the  place,  and  that  He  no 
longer  acknowledged  it  as  His  habitation.  This  re- 
sult had  been  predicted  to  Eli  as  the  inevitable  con- 
sequence of  the  atrocious  conduct  of  his  sons  (l.  Sam. 
ii.  29  ff.,  iii.  II  ff.),  and  the  corrupt  priesthood  re- 
flected but  too  accurately  the  corruption  of  the  peo- 
ple.    The  Psalmist  thus   interprets  the  event   and  its 


140         THE   WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES. 

moral  causes :  "  They  tempted  and  provoked  the 
Most  High  God  and  kept  not  His  testimonies.  .  .  . 
They  provoked  Him  to  anger  with  their  high  places, 
and  moved  Him  to  jealousy  with  their  graven  im- 
ages. When  God  heard  this,  He  was  wroth  and 
greatly  abhorred  Israel,  so  that  He  forsook  the  Tab- 
ernacle of  Shiloh,  the  tent  which  He  placed  among 
men,  and  delivered  His  strength  into  captivity,  and 
His  glory  into  the  enemy's  hand  "  (Ps.  Ixxviii.  56-61). 
And  the  Prophet  Jeremiah  says  (vii.  12):  "  Go  ye 
now  unto  My  place  which  was  in  Shiloh,  where  I  set 
My  name  at  the  first,  and  see  what  I  did  to  it  for  the 
wickedness  of  My  people  Israel."  (See  also  xxvi.  6, 
9).  Since  God  was  provoked  by  the  sins  of  the  people 
to  abandon  the  Sanctuary  which  He  had  established 
in  the  midst  of  them,  all  the  sacredness  of  Shiloh  was 
gone.  Samuel,  therefore,  leaves  it  for  his  paternal 
home  in  Ramah  (l.  Sam.  vii.  17)  ;  and  the  Mosaic 
Tabernacle  was  transferred  to  Nob,  which  either  was 
already,  or  now  became,  a  city  of  priests  (xxii.  19). 
This  was  not  a  different  sanctuary,  but  the  same  Tab- 
ernacle removed  to  another  place,  as  appears  from 
the  identity  of  the  priestly  family  (xxii.  1 1  ;  compare 
xiv.  3)  and  the  mention  of  the  shew-bread  (xxi.  6; 
compare  Ex.  xxv.  30;   Lev.  xxiv.  8,  9). 

The  capture  of  the  Ark  signified  the  withdrawal  of 
God's  presence  from  Israel,  but  it  brought  no  lasting 
triumph  to  the  Philistines.  It  was  the  source  of 
humiliation  to  their  idol  and  of  deadly  plagues  upon 
themselves,  until,  to  escape  further  inflictions,  they 
sent  it  back  to  the  land  of  Israel,  with  offerings  in 


THE    WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES.         141 

reparation  of  their  trespass.  The  joy  of  the  men  of 
Beth-shemesh  (l.  Sam.  vi.  13)  was  based  upon  the 
premature  assumption  that  Jehovah's  gracious  pres- 
ence was  to  be  forthwith  restored  to  Israel.  The 
ritual  requirements  of  the  Mosaic  Law  were  strictly 
observed  in  its  reception.  The  Levites  took  down 
the  Ark,  and  burnt-offerings  and  sacrifices  {i.e., 
peace-offerings)  were  sacrificed  before  it,  —  signifi- 
cant of  devotion  and  of  restored  fellowship  with  God. 
But  the  act  of  irreverent"  criminality  that  followed 
was  swiftly  and  terribly  punished  by  the  death  of 
seventy  men  of  the  town  and  fifty  thousand  of  the 
people  at  large. ^  The  inhabitants  of  Beth-shemesh 
were  terrified  in  consequence,  and  the  presence  of 
the  Ark  became  as  intolerable  to  them  as  it  had  been 
to  the  Philistines.  "  Who  is  able  to  stand  before 
Jehovah,  this  holy  God?  and  to  whom  shall  He  go 
up  from  us?"  This  language,  uttered  in  their  con- 
sternation, betrayed  that  they  were  aware  of  the 
breach  existing  between  Jehovah  and  themselves ; 
aware,  too,  of  the  fact  that  in  suffering  the  Ark  to  be 
removed  from  them  they  were  consenting  to  the 
departure  of  Jehovah  Himself. 

The  Ark,  which  contained  Israel's  most  sacred 
treasure,  Jehovah's  Covenant  with  them,  engraved 
on   stone   by  his    own  finger,    the  Ark,  which   was 

1  This  seems  to  be  the  simplest  explanation  of  ver.  19,  which  has 
given  a  needless  amount  of  trouble  to  commentators.  The  offence 
was  probably  not  that  of  looking  into  but  of  looking  at  the  Ark  of  the 
Lord,  which  none  might  see  divested  of  its  sacred  coverings  (Num. 
iv.  5,  20.) 


142         THE  WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES. 

the  symbol  and  seal  of  God's  presence  in  the  midst 
of  His  people,  —  which  had  hitherto  been  Israel's 
glory  and  defence,  and  which  had  made  the  Mosaic 
Tabernacle,  in  a  strict  and  special  sense,  Jehovah's 
dwelling-place,  —  was  now  become  an  unwelcome 
visitant,  suggestive  only  of  danger  and  of  displeasure. 
And  it  was  pushed  aside  into  the  obscurity  of  a  pri- 
vate house.  It  was  not  taken  back  to  Shiloh,  which 
God  had  deserted.  No  new  sanctuary  was  provided 
for  it ;  no  enthusiastic  welcome  was  accorded  to  it ; 
no  crowd  of  worshippers  flocked  to  the  spot  to  do 
homage  to  Him  who  dwelt  between  the  cherubim. 
The  only  question  was  how  to  dispose  of  what  was 
so  fraught  with  peril  to  all  who  were  in  its  vicinity. 
One  man  was  found  brave  enough  and  loyal  enough 
to  open  his  house  for  its  reception,  and  to  set  his  son 
apart  to  guard  it  until  such  time  as  the  breach  should 
be  healed. 

Twenty  years  passed  (l.  Sam.  vii.  2),  and  still  Israel 
was  without  the  Ark  and  without  a  sanctuary.  Mean- 
while the  heavy  pressure  of  Philistine  supremacy  at 
length  roused  in  the  people  a  sense  of  their  need  of 
His  saving  help,  whom  they  had  alienated.  **  All 
the  house  of  Israel  lamented  after  the  Lord."  At 
the  instance  of  Samuel,  they  put  away  their  strange 
gods  and  served  the  Lord  only.  Shiloh  was  a  sanc- 
tuary no  longer.  The  degenerate  priesthood  were 
false  to  their  high  office.  Samuel,  as  God's  accred- 
ited messenger  and  plenipotentiary,  assumed  himself 
the  functions  which  they  were  unworthy  to  discharge. 
He  summoned  the  people  to  Mizpeh,  who  fasted  and 


THE    WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES.         1 43 

poured  out  water  before  the  LoRD,  in  token  of 
penitent  humiliation.  He  offered  a  sucking  lamb  as 
a  whole  burnt-offering,  in  token  of  the  thorough  con- 
secration of  a  new-born  people  unto  God.  He  cried 
unto  the  LORD  for  Israel,  and  the  LORD  heard  him, 
and  granted  them  a  decisive  victory  over  their  op- 
pressors at  Eben-ezer,  —  the  very  spot  where  they 
had  previously  suffered  the  overwhelming  defeat  in 
which  the  Ark  was  lost.  Hence  it  appears  why 
Mizpeh  was  selected  as  the  place  for  this  penitent 
assemblage ;  it  was  in  order  that  God's  power  might 
be  signally  exerted  on  His  people's  behalf  upon  the 
scene  of  their  former  disaster  and  disgrace,  thus 
rendering  the  fact  conspicuous  that  it  had  not  oc- 
curred through  any  weakening  of  His  arm  of  might. 
(Compare  Hos.  i.  10).  The  sway  of  the  Philistines 
was  thus  broken ;  and,  though  the  struggle  between 
them  and  Israel  went  fiercely  forward  for  years  to 
come,  **  the  hand  of  the  LORD  was  against  the  Philis- 
tines all  the  days  of  Samuel,"  and  they  never  again 
regained  their  former  power.^  (Compare  II.  Kings 
vi.  23,  24.) 

1  Though  not  essential  to  our  argument,  it  will  lead  to  a  clearer 
comprehension  of  the  narrative  to  observe  that  i.  Sam.  vii.  13-17  is  a 
summary  view  of  the  rest  of  Samuel's  life,  which  is  introduced  here, 
not  because  it  chronologically  belongs  before  ch.  viii.,  but  because  the 
writer  here,  as  uniforrply  throughout  the  book,  formally  concludes  one 
theme  before  proceeding  to  another.  With  this  rapid  survey  of  the 
judgeship  and  life  of  Samuel,  which  in  point  of  time  extends  down  to 
I.  Sam.  XXV.  I,  he  winds  up  what  he  has  to  say  of  it  separately,  and 
then  passes  to  the  reign  of  Saul,  detailing  in  ch.  viii.  ff.  the  circum- 
stances which  led  to  his  appointment  as  king.  In  like  manner  I.  Sam. 
xiv.  47-52  brings  to  a  close  the  first  period  of  Saul's  reign,  his  success- 
ful conduct  of  Israel's  affairs  and  his  victories  over  surrounding  foes. 


144    ^-^^  WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES. 

And  now  we  should  expect  a  grateful  people  to 
have  made  their  submission  afre-sh  to  Him  who  had 
wrought  this  glorious  deliverance,  and  to  have  re- 
posed their  unwavering  trust  and  confidence  in  Him 
as  their  divine  and  all-sufficient  Helper.  Thus  the 
way  might  have  been  prepared  for  the  Most  High 
again  to  set  up  His  dwelling-place  in  the  midst  of 
them.  But,  instead  of  this,  the  next  thing  that  we 
hear  (ch.  viii.)  is  the  demand  of  the  people,  ''  Make 
us  a  king  to  judge  us,  like  all  the  nations."  In  this 
crisis  of  their  affairs  —  though  the  LORD  had  just 
demonstrated  His  power  and  readiness  to  save  a 
penitent  and  obedient  people — they  distrust  His 
help.  Their  invisible  Sovereign  can  no  longer  con- 
tent them ;  they  must  have  a  king.  This  inopportune 
request,  and  the  spirit  in  which  it  was  made,  were 
most  distressing  to  Samuel  and  displeasing  to  God, 

The  writer  then  enters,  in  the  next  chapter,  upon  the  narrative  of  Saul's 
trespass  and  rejection,  thus  preparing  the  way  for  the  anointing  of  David 
to  be  king  in  his  stead.  So  (ii.  Sam.  viii.  15-18)  the  summary  state- 
ments respecting  David's  reign  and  his  principal  officers  conclude  the 
account  of  the  early  portion  of  his  reign,  with  its  uninterrupted  prosper- 
ity and  success.  The  writer  is  about  to  enter  upon  the  next  period,  which 
was  marked  by  David's  great  sin,  and  the  disturbances  which  followed  in 
its  train.  Accordingly,  after  mentioning  an  incident  (ch.  ix)  which  was 
not  only  illustrative  of  David's  character,  but  had  a  bearing  on  matters 
to  be  stated  subsequently  (xix.  24  ff.),  he  proceeds  at  once  (ch.  x.)  with 
the  occasion  of  the  campaign  against  the  children  of  Amnion,  in  the 
course  of  which  David's  crime  against  Uriah  was  committed.  In  like 
manner  ii.  Sam.  xx.  23-26  marks  the  termination  of  the  next  period 
of  David's  life,  in  which  he  has  at  length  succeeded  in  suppressing  all 
rebellion  against  his  royal  authority,  and  thus  prepares  the  way  for  the 
supplementary  and  rather  miscellaneous  incidents  that  remain  to  be 
given. 


THE    WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES.         145 

who  said  to  his  aged  Prophet  (vcr.  7),  **  They  have 
not  rejected  thee,  but  they  have  rejected  Me,  that  I 
should  not  reign  over  them."  It  was  the  purpose  of 
God  that  the  kingdom  should  be  established  in  Israel. 
It  was  contemplated  in  the  Mosaic  Law  itself,  and 
provision  made  for  its  erection  (Deut.  xvii.  14).  The 
language  of  this  law  is  incorporated  in  the  narrative 
of  this  transaction  to  an  extent  which  plainly  shows 
that  it  was  in  the  mind  of  Samuel  and  the  people  at 
the  time ;  at  least  it  is  so  conceived  and  represented  by 
the  sacred  historian.  (See  above,  p.  65,  note.)  It 
would  not  have  been  wrong  for  them  to  ask  for  a  king 
under  circumstances  and  in  a  manner  which  did  not 
imply  a  lack  of  reliance  upon  God,  or  a  transfer  of 
their  confidence  from  Him  to  another.  If  they  had 
desired  a  king  in  the  spirit  of  Pss.  xx.  and  xxi.,  Samuel 
would  not  have  opposed  it,  nor  would  the  LORD  have 
been  offended  by  it.  It  was  their  preferring  a  king 
above  the  LORD  as  their  protector,  and  persisting  in 
their  wilful  choice  in  spite  of  the  remonstrances  of 
the  Lord's  Prophet  and  of  the  plainly  expressed  dis- 
approval of  the  Lord  Himself,  which  gave  character 
to  the  whole  proceeding;  and  this  is  the  feature  which 
is  made  prominent  in  the  history. 

The  Lord  did  not  refuse  the  people's  request,  as 
He  would  have  done  if  the  thing  desired  had  been  in 
itself  sinful,  and  the  appointment  of  a  king  had  been 
at  variance  with  the  divine  constitution  of  Israel.  But 
He  granted  it  in  such  a  way  as  to  teach  them  that 
while  the  kingdom,  with  God's  presence  and  favor, 
might  be  a  great  blessing,  it  would  be  the  reverse  if 


146         THE  WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES. 

erected  and  maintained  in  a  spirit  of  insubordination 
to  the  divine  will  and  authority.  He  gave  them  first 
in  Saul  a  king  without  God,  then  in  David  a  king 
after  God's  own  heart.  He  chose  Saul  in  strict  cor- 
respondence with  the  ideal  that  the  people  had  in 
mind,  a  man  of  goodly  person,  brave,  energetic,  and 
capable,  who  fought  their  battles  valiantly,  and  was 
victorious  over  their  foes  (i  Sam.  viii.  19,  20).  More- 
over he  was  a  worshipper  of  Jehovah,  and  was  not 
devoid  of  religious  impulses  and  a  certain  measure 
of  reverent  homage.  But  he  did  not  place  Jehovah's 
service  and  his  sovereignty  paramount.  He  was  not 
concerned  for  the  restoration  of  the  Sanctuary.  His 
reign  was  not  conducted  on  the  true  theocratic  prin- 
ciple that  Jehovah  was  the  real  Monarch  of  Israel 
and  the  king  was  but  his  vicegerent  and  deputy ;  and 
in  his  impetuous  nature  he  more  than  once  broke 
loose  from  the  restraints  of  express  divine  com- 
mands. 

With  the  people  thus  leaning  on  an  arm  of  flesh, 
and  the  king  in  whom  they  trusted  ruling  in  his  self- 
sufficiency,  of  course  the  Ark  must  remain  in  Kirjath- 
jearim,  in  the  house  of  Abinadab.  The  way  was  not 
prepared  for  the  LORD  to  come  back  to  his  people 
(Isai.  xl.  3).  He  had  forsaken  Shiloh ;  but  there 
must  be  a  different  state  of  things,  before  He  could 
properly  choose  a  new  sanctuary.  This  does  not 
mean  that  He  had  utterly  abandoned  Israel  for  the 
time,  and  withdrawn  from  them  every  token  of  His 
favor ;  but  He  had  put  them  under  a  course  of  disci- 
pline by  giving  them  that  for  which  they  asked,  a  king 


THE    WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES.         1 47 

to  judge  them  instead  of  God,  and  He  withdrew 
Himself  to  await  the  issue  (Hos.  v.  15).  They  were 
in  the  condition  of  Absalom,  whose  crime  was  so  far 
condoned  that  he  was  permitted  to  return  to  his  own 
house,  but  was  forbidden  to  see  the  face  of  the  king 
(11.  Sam.  xiv.  24.) 

But  Samuel  did  not  at  once  abandon  hope  for  the 
people  and  their  king,  nor  desist  from  his  endeavors 
to  bring  them  to  a  better  mind ;  and  the  LORD  em- 
ployed various  gracious  measures  for  the  same  end. 
Samuel  anointed  Saul,  and  gave  him  the  kiss  either 
of  allegiance  or  of  affection.  The  spirit  of  the  LORD 
came  upon  him,  and  God  gave  him  another  heart. 
The  Lord  wrought  deliverance  by  him  from  the 
Ammonites.  And  Samuel,  in  the  most  earnest  and 
touching  manner,  entreated  the  people  to  *'  turn  not 
aside  from  following  the  LORD,  but  to  serve  the  LORD 
with  all  their  heart."  And  yet  Saul's  repeated  acts 
of  disobedience  obliged  Samuel  at  last  to  give  him  up, 
and  to  say  to  him  (l.  Sam.  xv.  26),  ''thou  hast  re- 
jected the  Word  of  the  LORD,  and  the  LORD  hath 
rejected  thee  from  being  king  over  Israel ;  "  and  the 
strong  language  is  used  (ver.  35)  that  **  the  LORD 
repented  that  He  had  made  Saul  king  over  Israel." 
And  the  remainder  of  his  life  was  filled  up  with  a 
bitter  and  relentless  persecution  of  David,  who  by 
divine  direction  had  been  anointed  in  his  stead.  It 
was  a  reign  without  God.  Saul  had  apparently  no 
desire  to  re-establish  the  Sanctuary  of  God,  or  to  have 
the  Ark  brought  forth  from  its  obscure  retreat. 
Neither  the  people  nor  the  king  returned  unto  the 


148        THE   WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES. 

Lord,  and  the  Lord  did  not  return  unto  them 
(Mai.  iii.  7). 

But  David  was  no  sooner  established  in  his  kingdom 
than  he  instituted  measures  to  have  the  Ark  brought 
to  his  capital.  Recognizing  the  momentous  signifi- 
cance of  the  act,  he  assembled  "  all  the  chosen  men  of 
Israel,  thirty  thousand"  (ll.  Sam.  vi.  i),  and  brought  it 
up  with  solemn  pomp  and  numerous  sacrifices,  abasing 
himself  before  the  Ark  in  a  manner  that  drew  upon 
him  the  reproaches  of  his  wife,  but  which  he  justified 
by  the  fact  that  "  it  was  before  the  LORD  "  (ver.  21). 
Jehovah  had  returned  to  take  up  his  abode  amongst 
His  people.  That  this  was  the  point  of  view  from 
which  it  was  regarded  by  the  sacred  historian  appears 
from  the  emphasis  with  which  in  his  mention  of  the 
Ark,  both  as  taken  from  Shiloh  (l,  Sam.  iv.  4,)  and  as 
reinstated  in  Zion  (ll.  Sam.  vi.  2),  he  associates  with 
it  "  the  Lord  of  Hosts  who  dwelleth  between  the 
cherubim."  It  was  not  a  consecrated  vessel,  it  was 
God  Himself,  for  whom  this  enthusiastic  welcome 
was  prepared,  and  who  now  fixed  His  residence  on 
Zion  with  a  magnificence  that,  to  the  eye  of  faith, 
equalled  His  former  grand  descent  on  Sinai  (Ps.  Ixviii. 
16  fi".). 

The  facts  then  are  these.  Jehovah  dwelt  between 
the  cherubim,  or  sat  enthroned  above  the  cherubim, 
that  were  upon  the  Ark.  Wherever  the  Ark  went, 
Jehovah  went.  He  left  Shiloh,  and  came  into  the 
camp  of  Israel.  Dagon,  in  his  own  temple,  fell  pros- 
trate and  was  broken  in  pieces  before  Him.  His 
hand  was  laid  so  heavily  upon  the  Philistines  as  to 


THE    WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES.         149 

compel  them  to  send  the  Ark  back  to  the  land  of 
Israel.  The  violation  of  its  sacredness  by  the  over- 
curious  men  of  Beth-shemesh  and  by  Uzzah  was 
punished  by  sudden  death.  Jehovah  went  up  from 
Beth-shemesh  when  the  Ark  was  taken  away.  He 
came  to  Zion  when  the  Ark  was  carried  thither.  The 
place  of  the  Ark  was  the  place  of  sacrifice,  and,  until 
the  abandonment  of  Shiloh,  was  the  only  place  of 
stated  legitimate  sacrifice.  The  Ark  is  in  the  history 
exactly  what  it  is  in  the  Levitical  Law,  with  all  the 
sacredness  and  the  sanctions  and  the  requirements 
governing  its  transportation  and  its  custody. 

Such  was  Israel's  estimation  of  the  Ark ;  and  yet 
the  Ark  was  sufTered  for  more  than  a  generation  to 
lie  unnoticed  and  apparently  forgotten  in  the  obscur- 
ity of  a  private  house.  No  sacred  tent  was  erected  to 
receive  it.  No  pilgrimages  were  made  to  it  as  always 
heretofore.  No  festivals  were  held  in  its  neighbor- 
hood.  No  sacrifices  were  offered  there.  No  re- 
sponses were  sought  or  given.  No  homage  was  paid. 
There  were  no  attendant  priests ;  there  was  no  daily 
ceremonial.  The  historian  plainly  traces  this  to  the 
terror  which  it  inspired.  Israel  was  afraid  to  come 
near  to  this  symbol  of  Jehovah's  presence,  or  to  have 
it  brought  near  to  them.  They  were  profoundly  sen- 
sible of  the  disharmony  that  had  arisen ;  and  even 
though  ''  they  lamented  after  the  LORD,"  they  kept 
aloof.^ 

Samuel  had  been  trained  up  from  early  childhood 
in  the  Temple  at  Shiloh,  where  the  Ark  of  God  was. 
lie  knew  that  that  was  the  sole  place  of  sacrifice  for 


150         THE   WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES. 

all  Israel.  He  knew  the  meaning  and  the  sacredness 
of  the  Ark.  And  yet,  from  the  time  that  the  Lord 
abandoned  Shiloh,  Samuel  forsook  it  too,  and  never 
returned.  He  knew  the  full  significance  of  the  cap- 
ture of  the  Ark,  and  of  the  slaughter  of  its  priestly 
attendants ;  and  he  set  himself  to  heal  the  breach 
between  Jehovah  and  His  people.  The  promising 
symptoms  of  the  penitent  assemblage  at  Mizpeh  were 
soon  destroyed  by  the  want  of  faith  in  Jehovah,  which 
clamored  for  a  king  to  save  them  from  their  enemies, 
in  spite  of  the  urgent  entreaties  of  Samuel  himself, 
and  the  disapproval  of  the  Lord.  The  hope  to  which 
he  still  clung,  that  the  people  might  yet  prove  faith- 
ful to  the  Lord  after  their  request  had  been  granted, 
and  that  Saul  might  reign  as  a  true  servant  of  Jeho- 
vah, was  dimmed  and  dimmed  by  successive  disap- 
pointments, until  it  was  absolutely  quenched  by  Saul's 
wilfulness  and  transgression.  All  that  Samuel  could 
do  further  was  to  anoint  David  in  Saul's  stead,  and 
wait  and  pray  for  better  times. 

During  all  this  period  of  sad  degeneracy  and  earnest 
labors  for  Israel's  reformation,  Samuel  prayed  for  the 
people,  and  pleaded  with  them,  and  led  their  worship. 
He  sacrificed  at  Mizpeh,  at  Gilgal,  at  Ramah,  at  Bethel 
(possibly),  and  at  Bethlehem,  but  never  once  at 
Kirjath-jearim.  He  never  assembled  the  people  at  or 
near  the  house  of  Abinadab.  He  never  took  meas- 
ures to  have  the  Ark  present  at  any  assembly  of  the 
people,  or  upon  any  occasion  of  sacrifice.  The  LORD 
had  not  indicated  His  will  to  establish  another  sanc- 
tuary, where  He  might  record  His  name,  in  place  of 


THE    WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES.         151 

Shiloh  which  He  had  forsaken.  Israel  was  not  spirit- 
ually prepared  for  God's  return  to  dwell  among  them 
(Josh.  xxiv.  19).  Matters  were  not  ripe  for  the  re- 
newal of  the  interrupted  covenant  relations.  Under 
these  circumstances  it  was  not  regularity  of  ritual 
which  was  demanded  but  a  genuine  inward  reforma- 
tion. 

Jehovah  was  not  a  mere  tribal  god  or  a  national 
deity  in  any  such  sense  as  Dagon  was  of  the  Philis- 
tines, Chemosh  of  Moab,  Moloch  of  Ammon,  and 
Baal  of  the  Canaanites.  His  service  was  not  outward, 
formal,  and  mechanical.  The  fundamental  demand 
of  the  covenant  was  "Ye  shall  be  holy;  for  I  the 
Lord  your  God  am.  holy."  The  Old  Testament  is 
full  of  the  most  explicit  assertions  that,  if  this  was 
disregarded,  the  covenant  could  not  be  maintained 
(Ex.  xxxiii.  3;  Deut.  iv.  23-26;  Amos,  iii.  2,  3). 
Sacrifices  and  lustrations  were  no  acceptable  substi- 
tutes for  piety  of  heart  and  life.  The  principle  by 
which  Samuel  was  actuated  throughout  is  formulated 
by  himself  (l.  Sam.  xv.  22,  23),  '*  To  obey  is  better 
than  sacrifice,  and  to  hearken  than  the  fat  of  rams ; 
for  rebellion  is  the  sin  of  witchcraft,  and  stubbornness 
is  iniquity  and  teraphim."  The  people  must  be 
brought  back  to  God  in  penitent  submission,  before 
He  can  be  brought  back  to  them  and  own  Himself 
once  more  their  God.  Samuel  was,  therefore,  labor- 
ing for  the  re-establishment  of  the  Sanctuary  in  the 
only  way  in  which  it  could  be  effectually  brought 
about,  so  as  to  be  a  divine  reality  and  not  an  empty 
and  unmeaning  form. 


152         THE   WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES. 

It  Is  further  to  be  observed  that  Samuel  was  God's 
accredited  messenger  and  representative,  charged  with 
the  declaration  of  His  will  to  Israel ;  and  we  have  the 
right  to  assume  that  in  what  he  did  he  was  guided  by 
immediate  divine  direction.  So  that  when  he  offered 
sacrifices  elsewhere  than  at  Shiloh,  from  which  God 
had  withdrawn  His  presence,  and  when  he  assumed 
the  functions  of  a  priesthood  which  was  unworthy  to 
exercise  them  longer,  this  was  not  because  every  one 
was  at  liberty  to  usurp  the  priestly  prerogative  at 
will,  as  Saul  found  out  to  his  cost,  nor  because  sacri- 
fices might  be  acceptably  offered  wherever  any  one 
chose  to  offer  them,  but  because  the  Prophet  was  in 
all  this  only  the  Instrument  of  the  divine  will.  Doubt- 
less Samuel  might  have  said  of  each  act  and  place  of 
sacrifice  as  Elijah  said  of  his  sacrifice  at  Carmel 
(l.  Kings,  xviil.  36),  *' I  am  thy  servant,  and  I  have 
done  all  these  things  at  thy  word."  This  is  In  fact 
explicitly  recorded  of  his  sacrifice  at  Bethlehem 
(l.  Sam.  xvl.  2);  compare  xiii.  8,  13,  where  Samuel's 
appointment  in  relation  to  a  sacrifice  is  called  the 
Lord's  commandment. 

The  allegation  that  Samuel's  conduct  shows  him  to 
have  been  ignorant  of  the  Levitical  Law,  or  proves 
that  this  law  was  not  then  In  existence,  is  therefore 
wholly  without  foundation.  He  acted  upon  those 
great  underlying  principles  upon  which  the  ritual 
law  itself  was  based ;  and  he  acted  under  the  imme- 
diate direction  of  Him  by  whom  that  law  was  given. 
He  acted  In  Israel's  defection  precisely  as  the  great 
lawgiver  himself  acted  on  the  occasion  of  the  trans- 


THE    WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES.         153 

gression  of  the  Golden  Calf.  (See  above,  p.  100.) 
Moses  and  Samuel  are  accordingly  combined  by 
Jeremiah  xv.  i  and  Ps.  xcix,  6,  neither  the  Prophet 
nor  the  Psalmist  conceiving  that  there  was  any  vari- 
ance between  the  work  of  Samuel  and  the  Law  of 
Moses  rightly  understood.  If  Samuel's  conduct  can 
be  justified  notwithstanding  his  acquaintance  with 
the  Ark,  which  cannot  be  denied,  it  is  equally  capa- 
ble of  being  reconciled  and  in  the  very  same  man- 
ner with  his  knowledge  of  the  whole  round  of  Mosaic 
institutions. 

But  when  David  removed  the  Ark  from  Kirjath- 
jearim,  why  was  it  not  at  once  restored  to  its  place  in 
the  Mosaic  Tabernacle,  which  was  then  at  Gibeon  in 
the  neighborhood  of  Jerusalem  ?  or  if  it  was  to  be 
taken  to  Zion,  why  did  he  erect  a  new  tent  for  it  there, 
when  the  Tabernacle  of  Moses  might  so  easily  have 
been  brought  to  Zion  likewise?  The  reason  is  to  be 
sought  in  the  fact  that  a  transition  point  had  now 
been  reached  in  the  affairs  of  Israel.  God's  earthly 
kingdom  was  entering  upon  a  fresh  stage  of  its  exist- 
ence, and  a  change  should  be  made  in  the  royal  resi- 
dence to  correspond  with  it.  '*  David  perceived  that 
the  Lord  had  established  him  king  over  Israel,  and 
that  He  had  exalted  his  kingdom  for  His  people 
Israel's  sake"  (ll.  Sam.  v.  12).  The  migratory  period, 
properly  represented  by  the  Mosaic  tent,  was  over. 
The  unsettled  state  of  things,  which  had  lasted  until 
the  time  of  David,  the  struggle  with  yet  unsub- 
dued Canaanites,  and  the  wars  with  the  Philistines,  who 
were  lately  dominant,  had  at  length  come  to  an  end, 


154        THE  WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES. 

and  Israel  had  gained  complete  and  undisturbed  pos- 
session of  the  land  which  the  LORD  had  given  them. 
It  was  fit  that  God's  dwelling-place  in  Israel  should 
no  longer  be  a  movable  tent,  such  as  was  constructed 
for  the  march  through  the  desert,  or  was  adapted  to 
the  troublous  times  which  had  witnessed  and  com- 
pelled its  transportation  from  Shiloh  to  Nob,  and  from 
Nob  to  Gibeon.  God  had  now  given  firm  establish- 
ment to  His  people,  and  His  abode  among  them  ought 
henceforth  to  assume  the  character  of  a  fixed  and 
permanent  habitation  (l.  Chron.  xxiii.  25,  26).  He 
had  granted  prosperity  and  rich  abundance  to  the 
kingdom,  and  this  should  be  reflected  in  the  royal 
palace ;  ''  the  house  to  be  builded  for  the  Lord 
must  be  exceeding  magnifical,  of  fame  and  of  glory 
throughout  all  countries"  (l.  Chron.  xxii.  5). 

Accordingly  David  did  not  replace  the  Ark  in  the 
Mosaic  Tabernacle,  inasmuch  as  this  was  not  such  a 
house  as  it  was  fitting  for  Jehovah  to  have  thenceforth 
in  Israel.  He  set  it  in  a  tent  which  he  had  pitched 
for  its  temporary  accommodation  (ll.  Sam.  vi.  17). 
And  the  very  next  record  in  the  history  is  his  pro- 
posal to  erect  a  temple  (ch.  vii).  This  project,  which 
was  carried  into  effect  by  Solomon,  was  the  guiding 
idea  of  David's  reign,  who  made  extensive  prepara- 
tions for  it  by  the  treasures  amassed  in  his  various 
wars  (11.  Sam.  viii.  1 1  ;  I.  Kings,  vii.  51).  Hence  for 
the  remainder  of  David's  reign  there  were  two  heads 
of  the  priestly  order  (ii.  Sam.  viii.  17,  xv.  24-29,  35, 
XX.  25),  instead  of  one  as  at  every  other  period  before 
and  after.     These   represented  two   distinct   lines  of 


THE    WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES.         155 

descent  from  Aaron :  Zadok,  who  was  of  the  family 
of  Eleazar,  ministered  in  the  Mosaic  Tabernacle  at 
Gibeon ;  and  Abiathar  or  his  son  Ahimelech,  of  the 
family  of  Ithamar,  ministered  before  the  Ark  on 
Zion  (l.  Chron.  xvi.  39,  xxiv.  3).  This  duplication 
ceased  with  the  defection  and  deposition  of  Abiathar 
(l.  Kings,  ii.  26,  27),  which  fixed  the  priesthood  in  the 
line  of  Phinehas,  as  had  been  predicted  long  before 
(Num.  XXV.  11-13  ;   I.  Sam.  ii.  30  ff.). 

From  the  abandonment  of  Shiloh  to  the  erection  of 
the  Temple  of  Solomon,  the  worship  on  high  places 
was  allowable  (l.  Kings,  iii.  2),  as  it  had  not  been 
before  and  was  not  afterwards.  During  this  interval 
there  was  no  ''  place  which  the  LORD  had  chosen  to 
put  His  name  there,"  so  that  the  law  of  the  unity  of 
the  Sanctuary  was  necessarily  in  abeyance  (Deut.  xii. 
5  ff.).  But  from  the  time  of  Solomon  onward,  high 
places  are  nowhere  sanctioned,  directly  or  by  impli- 
cation. The  idolatrous  high  places  built  by  Solomon 
for  his  foreign  wives  (l.  Kings,  xi.  7,  8  ;  II.  Kings,  xxiii. 
13)  were  in  palpable  violation  of  Jehovah's  covenant; 
so  were  those  that  were  frequented  in  the  reign  of 
Rehoboam  and  other  ungodly  kings  (l.  Kings,  xiv. 
22-24).  The  fact  that  *'  the  high  places  were  not  re- 
moved," even  under  such  pious  kings  as  Asa  (l.  Kings, 
XV.  14),  Jehoshaphat  (xxii.  43),  Joash  (ll.  Kings, 
xii.  3),  Amaziah  (xiv.  4),  Uzziah  (xv.  4),  and  Jotham 
(ven  35)  is  confessedly  disapproved  by  the  author  of 
the  Books  of  Kings  (compare  also  I.  Kings,  xiii.  32, 
33  ;  II.  Kings,  xvii.  9,  xxi.  3) ;  and  it  implies  no  sanction 
on  the  part  of  these  monarchs,  but  simply  that  they 


156         THE   WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES. 

were  not  able  to  effect  their  extirpation,  and  perhaps 
were  not  as  zealous  in  the  matter  as  they  should  have 
been.  That  they  did  seek  to  remove  them,  and  with 
a  measure  of  success,  is  explicitly  affirmed  by  the 
author  of  Chronicles  (il.  Chron.  xiv.  3-5,  xvii.  6)  ; 
and  this  is  not  contradicted  by  anything  in  Kings. 
Some  of  these  high  places  were  dedicated  to  the  wor- 
ship of  Jehovah  (ll.  Kings,  xviii.  22  ;  Isai.  xxxvi.  7 ; 
II.  Chron.  xxxiii.  17),  and  Levitical  priests  officiated 
at  them  (ll.  Kings,  xxiii.  9) ;  but  this  does  not  dis- 
prove the  existence  of  the  law  forbidding  them,  any 
more  than  the  corruptions  of  the  Middle  Ages  would 
justify  the  assumption  that  the  New  Testament  had 
not  yet  been  written.  And  if  the  worship  on  high 
places  was  accounted  legitimate  until  the  reign  of 
Hezekiah,  how  comes  it  to  pass  that  there  is  not  a 
trace  of  such  a  view  in  the  Psalms  or  in  the  older 
Prophets?  God  is  invoked  and  described  as  dwelling 
in  Zion ;  no  other  habitation  is  ever  alluded  to,  no 
other  Sanctuary  is  ever  mentioned  with  approval. 
The  critics  tell  us  that  it  is  the  character  of  the  wor- 
ship offered  on  the  high  places,  and  not  the  high 
places  themselves,  w^hich  the  Prophets  condemn.  But 
the  fact  is  that  no  mention  is  made  in  the  entire  body 
of  the  prophetical  writings  of  a  single  high  place 
where  pure  and  acceptable  worship  was  offered,  or 
to  which  it  was  proper  to  resort.  The  people  are 
never  told  that  they  may  sacrifice  on  the  high  hills 
and  under  green  trees,  or  at  Bethel  and  Gilgal  and 
Beersheba,  if  only  they  sacrifice  to  the  LoRD  alone 
and  in  a  proper  manner.     They  are  never  told  that 


THE    WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES.         157 

God  will  be  pleased  with  the  erection  of  numerous 
altars,  provided  the  service  upon  them  is  rightly  con- 
ducted. 

It  cannot  be  pretended  that  the  Prophets  of  Judah 
look  otherwise  than  with  disfavor  upon  the  worship  on 
high  places.  This  is  acknowledged  of  Jeremiah  (iii. 
2,  vii.  31,  xvii.  1-3)  and  of  all  the  Prophets  after  his 
time.  (Compare  Ezek.  vi.  3,  6,  xvi.  16,  xx.  27-29.) 
It  is  equally  plain  in  Joel  (ii.  i,  15,  32,  iii.  16,  17,  21), 
Obadiah  (vers.  16,  17,  2i),  Micah,  (i.  5,  iv.  i,  2,  7), 
and  Isaiah  (not  to  repeat  passages  already  cited, 
p.  119,  xi.  9,  xii.  6,  xviii.  7,  xxiv.  23,  xxvii.  13, 
xxviii.  16,   xxix.  I,  8,  xxx.  29,  xxxi.  4,  9). 

But  it  is  urged  that  the  antithesis  suggested  by 
Hosea  and  Amos,  who  prophesied  in  the  Northern 
Kingdom,  is  not  between  the  worship  on  high  places 
and  worship  at  Jerusalem,  but  between  high  places 
and  the  true  service  of  Jehovah,  showing  that  it  was 
not  the  unity  of  the  Sanctuary  but  purity  of  worship 
which  they  had  at  heart.  We  not  only  freely  admit 
but  strenuously  insist  that  purity  is  above  unity  and 
unity  is  for  the  sake  of  purity.  This  attitude  of  the 
Prophets,  however,  so  far  from  conflicting  with  the 
Levitical  and  Deuteronomic  codes,  or  showing  that 
the  Prophets  were  unacquainted  with  them  and  with 
their  binding  authority,  is  identical  with  the  openly 
professed  intent  of  these  codes  themselves  (Lev.  xvii. 
3-7;  Deut.  xii.  2-5).  It  would  not  be  strange  if  some 
leniency  were  shown  to  the  pious  among  the  Ten 
Tribes  in  this  matter,  and  if  irregularities  were  consid- 
ered excusable  in  their  case,  which  the  exigencies  of 


158         THE  WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES. 

their  situation  rendered,  if  not  unavoidable,  yet  ex- 
tremely natural.  Nevertheless  even  here  there  is  not 
a  word  that  directly  or  positively  sanctions  worship  on 
any  high  place,  or  in  any  other  than  the  one  sole 
Sanctuary. 

If  a  pure  worship,  freed  from  idolatrous  adjuncts 
and  from  carnal  enticements,  was  maintained  in  the 
Sanctuary  on  Mount  Zion  alone,  then  Hosea's  appeal 
to  his  hearers  to  abandon  Gilgal  and  Bethel,  as  in- 
compatible with  a  true  reverence  for  Jehovah  (iv.  15, 
ix.  15),  his  affirmation  that  snares  are  laid  on  Mizpeh 
and  a  net  spread  upon  Tabor  (v.  i),  his  rebuke  of 
multiplied  altars  (viii.  11,  x.  i,  xii.  11),  and  his  de- 
nunciation of  judgment  on  Bethel  and  its  high  places 
(x.  8,  15),  are  equivalent  to  so  many  exhortations  to 
his  hearers  to  frequent  the  one  place  of  true  worship, 
and  must  have  been  so  understood  by  them.  Then, 
too,  when  Amos  opposes  seeking  Bethel  and  Dan 
and  Gilgal  and  Beersheba  to  seeking  the  LORD  (iv.  4, 
V.  4-6,  viii.  14),  or  threatens  desolation  to  the  high 
places  of  Isaac  and  the  sanctuaries  of  Israel  (iii.  14, 
vii.  9),  he  is  in  effect  recalling  the  transgressing  peo- 
ple to  the  worship  at  Jerusalem.  If,  however,  it  be 
maintained  that  there  were  other  sanctuaries  than 
that  on  Zion  where  the  worship  was  pure,  and  that 
Hosea  and  Amos  had  these  in  mind,  we  wait  for  the 
proof  of  an  assertion  which  Hosea  and  Amos  cer- 
tainly do  not  make,  which  is  directly  counter  to  the 
testimony  of  other  Prophets,  which  finds  no  confirma- 
tion in  the  expressed  views  of  the  sacred  historians 
or  in  any  known  facts  of  the  history,  but  is  simply 


THE    WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES.         I  59 

assumed  in  the  interest  of  a  critical  hypothesis. 
Moreover,  Amos  expressly  affirms  that  Zion  is  Je- 
hovah's Seat,  from  which  He  sends  forth  the  utter- 
ances of  His  might  (i.  2)  ;  and  both  he  and  Hosea 
range  themselves  in  line  with  the  Prophets  of  Judah 
by  their  recognition  of  the  fact  that  the  rightful  sway 
over  Israel  belonged  to  David's  Royal  House  (Hos. 
iii.  5,    viii.  4;   Amos,  ix.  11). 

We  are  now  prepared  to  estimate  the  following 
paragraph  from  Prof.  Robertson  Smith  (p.  235): 
"  The  earlier  history  relates  scarcely  one  event  of 
importance  that  was  not  transacted  at  a  holy  place. 
The  local  sanctuaries  were  the  centres  of  all  Hebrew 
life.  How  little  of  the  history  would  remain  if  She- 
chem  and  Bethel,  the  two  Mizpehs  and  Ophrah,  Gilgal, 
Ramah  and  Gibeon,  Hebron,  Bethlehem  and  Beer- 
sheba,  Kedesh  and  Mahanaim,  Tabor  and  Carmel 
were  blotted  out  of  the  pages  of  the  Old  Testament." 

I.  Of  the  fifteen  places  thus  promiscuously  thrown 
together,  there  are  three,  viz.,  Mizpeh  (east  of  Jor- 
dan), Kedesh,  and  Mahanaim,  in  which  there  is  no 
recorded  instance  of  sacrifice  in  post-Mosaic  times ; 
and,  in  two  of  them,  there  is  no  mention  of  sacrifice 
at  any  time,  whether  before  the  age  of  Moses  or  after 
it.  Mizpeh,  where  Jacob  and  Laban  covenanted  and 
offered  sacrifice  (Gen.  xxxi.  49,  54),  and  Mahanaim, 
where  the  angels  met  Jacob  (xxxii.  2),  like  other 
spots  memorable  in  the  lives  of  the  Patriarchs,  and 
like  Bannockburn,  Bunker  Hill,  and  Gettysburg  in 
more  modern  times,  were  hallowed  by  their  asso- 
ciations, and  were  for  that  reason  likely  to  be  selected 


l6o         THE   WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES. 

for  patriotic  gatherings  or  for  important  uses.  The 
children  of  Israel  assembled  at  Mizpeh  to  oppose  the 
Ammonites  (Judg.  x.  17)  ;  and  if,  as  seems  probable, 
it  was  the  same  as  Ramoth-gilead  (Josh.  xiii.  26),  it 
was  one  of  the  cities  of  refuge  (xx.  8).  Mahanaim 
was  a  Levitical  city  (xxi.  38),  the  capital  of  Ish- 
bosheth's  kingdom  (ll.  Sam.  ii.  8),  and  the  place  to 
which  David  fled  from  Absalom  (xvii.  24)  ;  and  Cant. 
vi.  13  speaks  somewhat  obscurely  of  ''the  dance  of 
Mahanaim."  But  there  is  nothing  that  implies  that 
either  was  a  sanctuary  for  w^orship.  Jephthah  is 
said  (Judg.  xi.  11)  to  have  "uttered  all  his  words 
before  the  LORD  in  Mizpeh."  But  so  David  and 
Jonathan  made  a  covenant  ''  before  the  LORD  "  in 
the  wood  where  the  former  was  hiding  (l.  Sam.  xxiii. 
18).  David  walked  "  before  the  LORD  "  in  the  whole 
of  his  pious  life  (l.  Kings,  iii.  6),  as  did  Jotham  (ll. 
Chron.  xxvii.  6)  and  Hezeklah  (xxxi.  20).  The 
foes  of  Asa  were  destroyed  *'  before  the  LORD  "  in 
battle  (II.  Chron.  xiv.  13).  Manasseh  humbled  him- 
self ''  before  the  LORD  "  in  his  captivity  at  Babylon 
(xxxiii.  12,23).  Nehemiah  (i.  4)  prayed  ''before 
the  God  of  Heaven  "  in  the  capital  of  Persia. 

The  Professor  tells  us  (p.  424)  that  Kedesh,  which 
was  a  Levitical  city  and  a  city  of  refuge  (Josh.  xxi. 
32),  and  where  Barak  marshalled  his  army  against 
Sisera  (Judg.  iv.  10),  "  is  proved  by  its  very  name" 
to  have  been  a  sanctuary ;  but  he  fails  to  inform  us 
when  or  by  whom  this  name  was  imposed  and  what 
gave  occasion  to  its  being  called  a  consecrated  place. 
The    argument  is    as  faulty   as   that   (p.   323)    from 


THE    WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES,         i6l 

"  Deut.  i.  I,  and  other  similar  passages,  where  the 
land  east  of  the  Jordan  is  said  to  be  across  Jordan, 
proving  that  the  writer  lived  in  Western  Palestine ;  " 
as  though  Cisalpine  Gaul  and  Transalpine  Gaul 
changed  names  to  the  old  Roman  generals  as  often 
as  they  crossed  the  Alps.  Or  it  may  be  classed  with 
his  inference  that  the  use  of  Negcb  for  ''  south  "  and 
sea  for  "west "  "  proves  quite  unambiguously  that  the 
Pentateuch  was  WTitten  in  Canaan ;  "  and  by  parity 
of  reasoning  we  may  infer  that  September  is  the 
seventh  month  of  the  year,  that  landlords  are  always 
owners  of  real  estate,  and  that  liinaey  is  produced 
by  the  influence  of  the  moon.  There  is  no  more 
familiar  phenomenon  in  language  than  that  words 
often  retain  their  secondary  senses,  even  when  these 
have  ceased  to  be  in  accord  with  their  primary 
sense. 

2.  Three  others  In  the  above  list  of  alleged  Israel- 
itlsh  sanctuaries,  viz.,  Shechem,  Beersheba,  and 
Tabor,  were  places  of  idolatrous  worship  only,  so  far 
as  we  know,  in  post-Mosaic  times.  Shechem  con- 
tained a  temple  of  Baal-berlth  (Judg.  ix.  4,  27,  46). 
Amos  uttered  his  warnings  against  the  sinful  worship 
of  Beersheba  (v.  5,  vili.  14),  and  Hosea  against  the 
net  spread  upon  Tabor  (v.  i).  But  there  Is  no  inti- 
mation that  any  other  style  of  worship  was  maintained 
in  these  places,  or  in  any  one  of  them.  Shechem,  by 
the  oak  of  Moreh,  was  Abram's  first  abode  in  the 
Promised  Land ;  there  the  LORD  appeared  to  him  and 
he  bullded  an  altar  (Gen.  xli.  6,  7).  Jacob  came 
back  to  Shechem  on  his  return  from  Padan-aram,  and 

II 


1 62         THE   WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES. 

he  erected  an  altar  there  (xxxiii.  i8,  20)  ;  and  all  the 
strange  gods  and  idolatrous  emblems  of  his  house- 
hold were  buried  under  the  oak  by  the  city  (xxxv. 
4).  In  memory  of  these  facts  Joshua  assembled  the 
people  at  Shechem  (Josh.  xxiv.  i)  when  he  would 
urge  them  to  put  away  their  strange  gods  (vers.  14, 
23),  and  he  set  up  a  monumental  stone  (ver.  26) 
under  the  old  oak  which  still  continued  to  stand  — 
not  *'  by,"  as  the  English  Version  has  it,  but  as  it  is 
in  the  Hebrew  —  *'  in  the  sanctuary  of  the  LORD." 
The  very  form  of  the  expression  shows  us  that  the 
sanctuary  here  spoken  of  was  not  a  building,  and 
there  is  no  intimation  that  sacrifices  were  offered 
there  upon  this  or  any  subsequent  occasion ;  it  was 
simply  a  spot  venerated  from  its  ancient  and  sacred 
associations.  The  place  gained  new  sacredness  from 
these  parting  counsels  of  Joshua,  and  was  hence 
selected  for  the  coronation  of  Abimelech  (Judges 
ix.  6)  and  of  Rehoboam  (i.  Kings,  xii.  i),  and  for 
the  royal  residence  of  Jeroboam  (ver.  25).  It  was 
also  one  of  the  cities  of  refuge  (Josh.  xx.  7)  ;  but  it 
is  nowhere  affirmed  or  implied  that  it  was  a  sanctuary 
for  the  worship  of  Jehovah. 

The  Lord  appeared  to  Isaac  (Gen.  xxvi.  23-25) 
and  subsequently  to  Jacob  (xlvi.  i .)  in  Beersheba,  both 
of  whom  offered  sacrifices  there.  It  was  also  the  scene 
of  an  interesting  incident  in  the  life  of  Abraham,  who 
also  worshipped  there  (xxi.  31,  33).  This  ancient 
sacredness  no  doubt  contributed  to  its  selection  as 
one  of  the  chief  seats  of  idolatry  in  later  times.  The 
lofty   summit  of  Tabor  sufficiently   accounts  for  its 


THE    WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES.         1 63 

becoming  a  place  of  idolatrous  sacrifice(Hos.  iv.  13). 
The  suggestion  (p.  424)  that  it  is  "  alluded  to  in 
Deut.  xxxiii.  18,  19,  as  the  Sanctuary "  of  Zebulun 
and  Issachar,  is  wholly  without  foundation. 

3.  Six  of  the  alleged  sanctuaries  are  places  where 
sacrifices  were  offered  on  some  special  occasion  or 
during  some  brief  period,  but  were  not,  so  far  as  there 
is  any  record  upon  the  subject,  permanent  places  of 
sacrifice.  We  read  of  offerings  in  five  of  these  places 
in  the  provisional  period  from  Samuel  to  Solomon, 
and  in  that  exclusively;  they  are  Mizpeh  (west  of 
Jordan),  Ramah,  Gibeon,  Hebron,  and  Bethlehem. 
The  one  offering  spoken  of  at  Mizpeh  (l.  Sam.  vii. 
5,  9)  was  by  Samuel  when  the  place  of  Israel's  defeat 
was  by  divine  help  converted  into  one  of  victory  (see 
above,  p.  143).  It  is  with  allusion  to  this  event  that 
Mizpeh  is  said  (i.  Mace.  iii.  46)  to  have  been  "  a  place 
of  prayer  aforetime  for  Israel."  In  I.  Sam.  x.  17  this 
same  spot  was  significantly  selected  for  the  gathering 
of  the  people  ''  unto  the  LORD,"  when  Samuel  recited 
God's  gracious  acts  of  deliverance,  which  in  their  de- 
mand of  a  king  they  had  so  sinfully  disregarded  ;  but 
no  mention  is  made  of  sacrifice.  Nor  was  any  sacri- 
fice offered  when  the  people  were  gathered  '*  unto  the 
Lord"  in  Mizpeh  (Judg.  xx.  i),  to  go  up  to  battle 
against  Benjamin.  The  reason  why  they  met  there 
was  not  the  superior  sacredness  of  the  place,  but  its 
proximity  to  Gibeah  where  the  crime  had  been  com- 
mitted. It  was  a  convenient  point  for  negotiations 
with  Benjamin  (ver.  12),  or  if  need  be  for  hostilities 
against  them.     When  they  desired  to  ask  counsel  of 


164         THE   WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES. 

God  (vers.  18,  27),  or  to  offer  sacrifices  (ver.  26,  xxi. 
4),  they  went  for  the  purpose  to  Bethel,  to  which  the 
Ark  was  temporarily  brought  from  Shiloh  for  the 
occasion.  Samuel  judged  Israel  in  Mizpeh  from  year 
to  year  (l.  Sam.  vii.  16);  but  he  is  nowhere  said  to 
have  offered  more  than  the  one  sacrifice  there. 

Ramah  was  another  place  of  Samuel's  judgment, 
and  there  he  built  an  altar  unto  the  Lord  (ver.  17); 
this  was  the  scene  of  the  sacrifice  spoken  of,  ix.  12. 
Gibeonwas  *' the  great  high  place"  (l.  Kings,  iii.  4)  in 
the  early  years  of  Solomon,  because  the  Mosaic  Tab- 
ernacle was  there  (11.  Chron.  i.  3,  13).  Hebron,  where 
Abraham  dwelt  and  built  an  altar  (Gen.  xiii.  18),  and 
where  Jacob  lived  (xxxvii.  14),  was  a  priestly  city  and 
a  city  of  refuge  (Josh.  xxi.  13).  David  went  thither 
by  divine  direction  (ll.  Sam.  ii.  i),  and  was  anointed 
king  over  Judah  (ver.  4),  and  subsequently  king  over 
Israel,  after  making  a  league  there  with  the  elders  of 
the  people  "  before  the  Lord  "  (v.  3) ;  but  the  only 
thing  recorded  which  implies  a  sacrificial  service 
there,  is  Absalom's  vow  (xv.  7-9).  Samuel  by  God's 
command  offered  a  sacrifice  in  Bethlehem  (l.  Sam. 
xvi.  2  ff.) ;  and  David's  family  held  a  yearly  sacrifice 
there  (xx.  6).  All  the  offerings  now  recited  occur  in 
the  interval  between  God's  forsaking  Shiloh  and  the 
building  of  the  Temple,  which  has  been  already  suffi- 
ciently discussed.  There  is  no  hint  of  post-Mosaic 
sacrifices  at  any  of  these  places  before  or  after  this 
term  of  the  cessation  of  the  divinely  instituted  Sanc- 
tuary. 

Elijah,  acting  under  express  divine  orders  (l  Kings, 


THE   WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES.         1 65 

xviii.  36),  offered  his  sacrifice  at  Carmel,  repairing  for 
the  purpose  the  previously  existing  altar  of  the  Lord 
which  had  been  broken  down  (ver.  30).  This  shows, 
as  we  learn  further  from  xix.  14,  that  the  pious  in  the 
apostate  Kingdom  of  Israel,  who  were  cut  off  from 
attendance  at  Jerusalem,  preferred  to  sacrifice  in  an 
irregular  manner  rather  than  be  precluded  from  offer- 
ing to  Jehovah  altogether.  This  neither  implies  igno- 
rance of  the  Mosaic  Law,  nor  a  wanton  disregard  of  it. 
It  is  a  breach  of  out\vard  order  for  the  sake  of  preserv- 
ing God's  worship  from  extinction.  The  forced  con- 
struction of  Mic.  vii.  14,  which  makes  it  declare  that 
God  dwells  in  the  midst  of  Carmel,  and  in  which 
Baudissin  ^  follows  Hitzig,  will  probably  commend 
itself  to  few.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the 
Professor  adopts  it. 

4.  But  three  of  the  alleged  sanctuaries  remain,  viz.. 
Bethel,  Ophrah,  and  Gilgal,  in  each  of  which  sacrifices 
were  offered  upon  special  occasions  only,  and  for 
assignable  reasons ;  and  each  subsequently  became 
a  seat  of  idolatry.  Gideon's  present  of  a  kid  and 
unleavened  cakes  was  converted  into  a  sacrifice  by 
the  Angel  of  the  Lord  who  appeared  to  him  in 
Ophrah  (Judg.  vi.  20,  21),  whereupon  he  built  a 
memorial  altar  (ver.  24) ;  afterwards  by  express  divine 
command  he  threw  down  the  altar  of  Baal,  erected  one 
to  Jehovah  in  its  stead,  and  offered  a  bullock  upon  it 
(vers.  25  ff.).  An  ephod,  which  he  set  up  in  Ophrah, 
was  perverted  to  an  idolatrous  use  (viii.  27).     Bethel, 

1  Article  "  Hohendienst,"  p.  183,  in  Herzog  und  Plitt's  Real- 
Encyclopaedie. 


1 66        THE  WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES, 

where  God  appeared  twice  to  Jacob  (Gen.  xxviii.  loff., 
XXXV.  9  ff.),  was  temporarily  a  place  of  sacrifice  dur- 
ing the  presence  of  the  Ark  (Judg.  xx.  i8,  26,  27); 
and,  when  the  regular  services  of  the  Sanctuary  were 
suspended  in  the  time  of  Samuel,  mention  is  made  of 
men  going  up  with  their  offerings  to  God  to  Bethel 
(l.  Sam.  X.  3).  These  sacred  associations  no  doubt 
influenced  Jeroboam  in  determining  to  set  up  one  of 
his  Golden  Calves  at  Bethel  (i.  Kings,  xii.  29). 

Gilgal,  which  was  Israel's  first  encampment  in  the 
Holy  Land  (Josh.  iv.  19),  and  where  they  renewed 
their  covenant  with  God  by  circumcision  and  the 
Passover  after  the  long  period  of  alienation  and  wan- 
dering in  the  Wilderness  (v.  2  ff.),  was  selected  by 
Samuel  with  a  view  to  these  old  memories  as  one  of 
his  places  of  judgment  (i.  Sam.  vii.  16),  and  particu- 
larly for  the  sacrifices  by  which  the  kingdom  was 
inaugurated  (x.  8,  xi.  14,  15),  as  he  sought  to  reclaim 
the  people  from  their  forgetfulness  and  rejection  of 
the  Lord.  Arid  it  was  here  that  Saul's  repeated  acts 
of  disobedience  (xiii.  9  ff.,  xv.  15  ff.)  destroyed  every 
hope  that  the  ancient  experience  of  Gilgal  might  be 
repeated,  so  long  as  he  sat  upon  the  throne.  This 
consecrated  spot  was  for  that  very  reason  chosen 
by  idolaters  for  their  worship  (Judg.  iii.  19,  —  where 
*'  quarries  "  of  the  English  version  should  be  ''  ima- 
ges,"—  Hos.  iv.  15,    ix.  15,   xii.  1 1  ;  Amos,  iv.  4). 

We  have  now  gone  with  some  care  through  the 
entire  list  of  what  the  Professor  calls  ''  local  sanctua- 
ries ;  "  and  the  facts  show  that  apart  from  idolatrous 
perversions,  there  was  not  a  single  sanctuary  for  per- 


THE   WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES.         167 

manent  worship  among  them.  Deduct  the  two  or 
three  instances,  in  the  period  of  the  Judges,  in  which 
Jehovah  or  the  Angel  of  Jehovah  appeared  to  men, 
and  sacrifices  were  offered  on  the  spot,  —  deduct  fur- 
ther the  sacrifices  offered  when  Israel  had  no  sanctu- 
ary, after  God  had  withdrawn  from  Shiloh  and  before 
the  Temple  was  built,  or  in  the  peculiar  circumstances 
of  the  Ten  Tribes  in  the  lifetime  of  Elijah,  —  deduct 
these  sacrifices  which  were  due  to  special  causes  and 
were  strictly  limited  to  the  occasion  that  called  them 
forth,  and  there  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  that  any 
one  of  these  places  was  a  sanctuary  for  the  worship 
of  Jehovah.  This  whole  hypothesis  of  ''  local  sanc- 
tuaries "  rests  on  absolutely  unsupported  conjecture. 
With  a  total  disregard  of  the  considerations  that  rule 
in  some  exceptional  case,  the  conclusion  is  at  once 
drawn  that  it  represents  a  permanent  and  habitual 
course  of  action.  Each  instance  of  special  sacrifice 
is  adduced  as  evidence  of  a  new  sanctuary.  By  a 
like  process  of  argument,  some  future  historian  of  the 
American  Colonies  may  infer  from  the  fact  that  the 
Continental  Congress  met  at  various  places  during 
the  exigencies  of  the  Revolutionary  War,  that  Lancas- 
ter, York,  Princeton,  and  Annapolis  were  all  perma- 
nent capitals  like  Philadelphia,  and  that  instead  of 
one  united  body  of  representatives  from  all  the  colo- 
nies, there  must  have  been  several  distinct  bodies 
holding  their  sessions  simultaneously  and  meeting 
continuously  at  these  different  points. 

The  question  here  recurs :   Do  the  known  facts  re- 
specting Israel's  worship  militate  against  the  Mosaic 


1 68        THE  WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES, 

origin  of  the  Pentateuchal  laws?  The  critics  tell  us 
that  the  law  of  the  unity  of  the  Sanctuary  was  con- 
stantly disobeyed  until  the  time  of  Josiah,  — that  pre- 
vious to  his  reign,  both  the  ungodly  and  the  godly 
portion  of  the  people,  both  wicked  and  pious  princes, 
act  in  a  manner  which  shows  that  no  such  law  was 
known  to  them  or  heeded  by  them.  Josiah's  vigo- 
rous reforms  must  accordingly  mark  the  first  serious 
attempt  to  Introduce  this  law,  and  Deuteronomy  must 
be  dated  from  his  reign,  or  shortly  before  It. 

Now,  what  is  the  real  state  of  the  case?  The  Ark 
of  the  covenant  and  the  Mosaic  Tabernacle  constituted 
the  sole  Sanctuary  of  Jehovah  from  the  entrance  Into 
Canaan  until  the  capture  of  the  Ark  by  the  Philistines. 
From  that  time  until  the  Ark  was  taken  to  Zion  it  was 
simply  lodged  in  a  private  house,  and  no  sacrifices 
were  offered  before  it ;  but  Samuel  and  others  sacri- 
ficed in  different  parts  of  the  land.  A  time  so  evi- 
dently anomalous,  however,  supplies  no  criterion  for  a 
normal  state  of  affairs.  It  cannot  be  Inferred  that 
there  was  no  law  restricting  sacrificial  worship  to  the 
Sanctuary,  because  this  restriction  was  not  observed 
when  no  sanctuary  existed.  Would  any  one  think  of 
arguing  that  Washington  City  was  not  the  legally  es- 
tablished seat  of  government  In  the  United  States, 
because  the  President  and  Congress  were  dislodged 
by  the  burning  of  the  Capitol  and  other  public  build- 
ings in  1 8 14,  —  or  that  England  is  not  by  its  consti- 
tution a  hereditary  monarchy,  because  Oliver  Crom- 
well ruled  as  Protector? 

From  the  time  that  the  Ark  was  lodged  in  Solo- 


THE   WORSHIP  IN  HIGH  PLACES.         169 

mon's  Temple  and  the  divine  glory  took  manifest 
possession  of  it,  this  was  Israel's  exclusive  Sanctuary. 
And  the  attempt  to  disprove  this  by  urging  the  sub- 
sequent existence  of  high  places,  which  the  sacred 
historian  condemns  and  which  the  Prophets  with  one 
voice  disallow,  is  as  though  some  one  were  to  infer 
that  no  prohibitory  law  had  ever  been  passed  in 
Maine,  because  liquor  continues  to  be  sold  in  the 
State,  and  that,  as  is  alleged,  with  the  connivance  of 
officers  elected  on  the  temperance  ticket.  There  was 
but  one  Ark  from  the  days  of  Moses  to  the  Babylo- 
nish captivity,  and  Jehovah  dwelt  between  its  cheru- 
bim. This  fact,  which  can  neither  be  denied  nor 
explained  away,  is  the  impregnable  stronghold  of  our 
position. 

And  let  it  be  remembered  that  the  preceding  argu- 
ment has  been  conducted  without  the  aid  which  we 
are  entitled  to  draw  from  the  Books  of  Chronicles. 
It  is  confessed  by  all  that  if  their  testimony  is  admit- 
ted into  the  case,  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  institutions 
of  the  Pentateuch  is  unassailable. 


ADDENDUM 
To  Page  149,  Line  4  from  bottom. 

And  in  the  very  midst  of  the  glad  and  triumphal 
transportation  of  the  Ark  to  the  city  of  David,  the 
whole  proceeding  was  suddenly  arrested  by  the  mani- 
festation of  Jehovah's  displeasure,  in  the  death  of 
Uzzah.  David  feared  to  take  the  Ark  further,  and  it 
was  once  more  deposited  in  a  private  house.  There 
it  remained  for  three  months,  until  the  blessing  be- 
stowed upon  the  house  of  Obed-edom,  because  of  the 
Ark,  gave  assurance  that  the  anger  of  the  Lord  was 
turned  away,  and  His  favor  was  again  restored  to  His 
people. 


KUENEN   ON   THE    PROPHETS   AND 
PROPHECY    IN   ISRAEL. 


KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS  AND  PROPH^ 
ECY   IN   ISRAEL. 


^T^HE  recent  work  by  Professor  Kucnen,  of  the 
-*-  University  of  Leyden,  entitled  "  The  Prophets 
and  Prophecy  in  Israel,"  ^  is  written  from  the  stand- 
point of  the  most  ultra  criticism  and  of  absolute  anti- 
supcrnaturalism.  The  concurrent  judgment  of  all 
past  ages  has  found  a  surprising  coincidence  between 
the  predictions  of  these  Prophets  and  the  facts  of  sub- 
sequent history.  The  defenders  of  revealed  religion 
have  esteemed  this  one  of  the  firm  bulwarks  of  their 
faith,  and  have  ranked  it  among  the  convincing  evi- 
dences of  the  divinity  and  inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. They,  to  whom  the  Scriptures  were  not  in  any 
supernatural  sense  the  Word  of  God,  have  confessed 
the  potency  of  this  argument  by  the  extraordinary 
pains  which  they  have  taken  to  rid  themselves  of  it 
by  every  expedient  of  criticism  and  exegesis.  But 
withal  they  have  not  been,  in  Dr.  Kuenen's  opinion, 

1  "The  Prophets  and  Projihecy  in  Israel."  An  Historical  and 
Critical  Enquiry,  by  Dr.  A.  Kuenen,  Professor  of  Theology  in  the 
University  of  Leyden.  Translated  from  the  Dutch  by  the  Rev.  Adam 
Milroy,  M.A.,  with  an  Introduction  by  J.  Muir,  Esq.,  D.C.L.  Lon- 
don: Longmans,  Green  &;  Co.     1877.    8vo,  pp.  593. 


174  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

sufficiently  thorough-going.  "The  supporters  of  the 
naturaHstic  hypothesis  themselves,"  he  says  (p.  6), 
"  do  not  maintain  it  in  a  thorough  and  consistent 
manner,  but  in  their  description  of  Israelitish  proph- 
ecy introduced  features  which  are  borrowed  from  the 
traditional  theory,  or  at  least  find  there  alone  their 
proper  place." 

This  weakness  and  inconsistency  he  proposes  utterly 
to  eschew.  He  would  relieve  the  hypothesis  of  the 
purely  human  origin  of  the  Bible  from  the  burden  by 
which  it  has  hitherto  been  pressed.  With  this  view, 
he  denies  the  existence  of  any  such  correspondence 
between  prophecy  and  the  event  as  has  been  hitherto 
claimed  by  believers,  and  confessed  to  no  small  extent 
even  by  those  who  dispute  its  supernatural  inspira- 
tion. He  undertakes  to  point  out  in  detail  that  a  large 
proportion  of  the  prophecies  have  never  been  fulfilled 
at  all  in  any  proper  sense,  and  that  the  fulfilment  of 
many  more  has  been  but  partial.  And  he  makes  this 
the  basis  of  his  entire  argument  to  discredit  their 
divine  origin.  If  it  be  true  that  the  major  part  of 
these  predictions  have  not  been  fulfilled,  then  they 
are  certainly  not  from  God,  and  the  comparatively 
few  instances  in  which  they  have  been  verified  in  fact 
must  be  otherwise  accounted  for.  They  may  have 
been  shrewd  conjectures,  or  the  prophecy  may  have 
wrought  its  own  fulfilment  by  its  influence  on  those 
to  whom  it  was  addressed,  or  the  coincidence  may  be 
purely  accidental.  In  the  introduction  John  Muir, 
Esq.,  of  Edinburgh,  at  whose  solicitation  the  volume 
was  prepared  and  to  whom  it  is  dedicated,  thus  ex- 


AND  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL.  175 

presses  his  confident  persuasion  of  the  cogency  of 
the  argument  (p.  xxxix) :  "  The  ample  and  satisfac- 
tory proofs  which  Professor  Kuenen  has  adduced  in 
support  of  his  conchisions  must,  I  think,  produce  a 
powerful  effect  on  all  candid  inquirers  who  study  them 
with  care  and  attention,  and  tend  to  bring  about  in 
the  minds  of  thoughtful  men  a  great  change  of  opin- 
ion in  regard  to  the  authority  and  the  character  of 
the  Scriptures,  whether  of  the  Old  or  of  the  New 
Testaments," 

We  do  not  share  this  judgment.  We  have  no  idea 
that  any  serious  revolution  of  opinion  will  result  from 
this  publication.  We  make  no  pretence  to  under- 
estimate the  learning  and  ability  which  it  displays, 
nor  the  consummate  art  shown  by  Professor  Kuenen 
in  the  presentation  of  his  views.'  But  we  need  not 
shrink  from  having  the  most  searching  test  applied 
to  secure  foundations.  The  accomplishment  of  the 
predictions  of  the  Prophets  is  not  a  question  of 
recent  origin  or  of  uncertain  issue.  And  the  con- 
viction which  the  Christian  world  has  reached  upon 
this  subject  is  no  mere  prejudice  blindly  adopted, 
nor  a  hasty  judgment  formed  after  slight  considera- 
tion and  resting  upon  inadequate  grounds,  and  liable 
consequently  to  be  set  aside  by  more  thorough  and 
searching  inquiry.  Every  element  that  can  possibly 
affect  the  settlement  of  this  question  has  long  since 
been  brought  forward  and  subjected  to  the  most 
rigorous  tests.  The  prophecies  are  before  us.  The 
facts  of  history  are  known  at  least  in  their  main 
features.      The   correspondence   is   a   palpable  one, 


176  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

and  no  learned  ingenuity  can  obliterate  it.  Every 
line  in  ancient  authors  that  has  any  possible  relation 
to  this  subject,  near  or  remote,  has  long  ago  been 
adduced  and  diligently  scanned.  Buried  monuments 
continue  to  be  exhumed  and  are  throwing  welcome 
light  on  remaining  obscurities,  but  these  cannot  revo- 
lutionize all  history  nor  disturb  well-known  and  w^ell- 
attested  facts.  There  is  not  a  fact  nor  a  historical 
testimony  brought  forward  in  this  volume,  as  contra- 
vening or  appearing  to  contravene  what  was  foretold 
by  the  Prophets,  that  has  not  been  elaborately  dis- 
cussed before  in  all  its  bearings  and  its  full  significance 
ascertained.  It  is  not  likely,  consequently,  that  their 
fresh  production  now  will  occasion  any  great  shock  or 
be  attended  by  important  changes  in  w^ell-established 
views.  If  there  be  anything  in  particular  which  can 
be  called  novel  in  Professor  Kuenen's  line  of  argu- 
ment, it  is  the  bravery  with  which  he  carries  through 
what  is  known  among  logicians  as  the  petiiio  principii, 
or  begging  the  question,  —  covertly  assuming  the 
point  at  issue,  and  then  working  it  out  to  an  apparent 
demonstration.  The  prophecies  are  dealt  with  on  the 
assumption  that  they  are  a  merely  human  production  ; 
and  then  the  conclusion  that  they  are  merely  human 
necessarily  follows. 

The  question  at  issue  is  indeed,  as  Professor  Kuenen 
observes  (p.  5),  ''  closely  connected  with  the  deepest 
needs  and  the  most  important  interests  of  mankind ; 
and  these  have  nothing  to  fear  from  the  truth."  We 
confess,  however,  that  we  see  no  good  reason  to  in- 
dulge the  hope,  which  he  cherishes,  that  a  speedy  and 


AND  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL.  177 

decisive  settlement  can  be  reach&d  which  shall  com- 
pel the  assent  of  all  parties.  "  It  is,"  he  says,  "  an 
historical  problem.  Every  one  knows  the  sources 
which  must  be  consulted  for  its  solution."  Neverthe- 
less his  o\A'n  volume  forces  the  conviction  upon  us 
afresh  that  the  time  has  not  yet  arrived  for  terminat- 
ing the  long  controversy  of  ages.  His  own  con- 
clusions rest  not  on  the  historical  data,  but  on  the 
**  dogmatic  presuppositions  "  with  which  these  have 
been  approached,  notwithstanding  his  repeated  pro- 
fession that  he  is  wholly  emancipated  from  such  influ- 
ences. Starting  with  the  convictions  that  he  has,  he 
could  arrive  at  no  other  result  than  he  does ;  but  they 
who  entertain  contrary  convictions  will  not  find  it  nec- 
essary to  follow  him.  The  recognition  or  the  rejec- 
tion of  the  divine  and  the  supernatural  is  not  a  mere 
act  of  the  intellect  freely  balancing  intellectual  con- 
siderations. There  is  an  antecedent  bias  from  each 
man's  spiritual  attitude.  To  him  who  is  prepared  to 
admit  the  reality  of  immediate  communications  from 
God  to  men  upon  rational  evidence,  the  facts  supply 
a  convincing  demonstration  ;  while  he  to  whom  such 
communications  are  a  priori  inadmissible  will  either 
refuse  to  admit  the  facts  or  put  some  different  inter- 
pretation upon  them.  It  is  this  element  of  the  will, 
entering  into  and  influencing  our  judgments  respect- 
ing divine  and  spiritual  things,  v/hich  gives  them  their 
moral  character  and  makes  every  man  morally  re- 
sponsible for  his  belief. 

According  to  Dr.  Kuenen's  view,  as  stated  by  him- 
self, "  prophecy  is  one  of  the  most  important  and 

12 


178  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

remarkable  phenomena  in  the  history  of  rehgion,  but 
just  on  that  account  a  human  phenomenon,  proceed- 
ing from  Israel,  directed  to  Israel."  It  is  from  God 
in  no  other  sense  than  as  "  from  Him  are  all  things." 
It  is  "  a  testimony  not  as  out  of  heaven  to  us,  but  a 
testimony  to  men's  need,  and  to  Israel's  peculiar  des7 
tination  to  '  seek  the  Lord,  if  haply  they  might  feel 
after  Him  and  find  Him,'  "  —  a  destination,  by  the 
way,  which  in  the  Scriptures  is  ascribed  not  to  Israel, 
but  to  the  Gentiles  before  Christ's  coming.  '*A 
preparation  for  Christianity?  Yes;  but  in  another 
sense  than  that  which  tradition  means  by  these 
words,  —  no  prediction  of  facts  in  the  life  of  Christ, 
but  a  preparation  of  the  soil  out  of  which  Christ- 
ianity was  to  spring,  the  prelude  to  the  new  relig- 
ious creation  which  mankind  owe  to  Jesus  of 
Nazareth"   (pp.  4,  5). 

He  seeks  to  conciliate  favor  for  this  view  by  calling 
it  the  historico-critical,  or  organic,  as  distinguished 
from  the  traditional.  We  cannot  concede  the  pro- 
priety of  this  designation.  The  organic  view  of 
prophecy  is  not  only  entirely  consistent  with  the 
supernatural  conception  of  its  origin  and  character, 
but  is  held  as  firmly  by  those  who  maintain  its  divin- 
ity and  inspiration  as  by  those  who  deny  it.  Its  or- 
ganic nature  is  dependent  not  on  the  question  of  its 
origin,  but  of  its  structure  and  relations.  Prophecy 
grew  directly  out  of  the  heart  of  the  Israelitish  peo- 
ple, took  its  shape  from  their  necessities,  was  moulded 
by  their  changing  circumstances  age  by  age,  and  had 
its  regular  and  consistent  unfolding  from  first  to  last. 


AND  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL.  \  79 

That  all  was  nevertheless  due  to  the  immediate  im- 
pulses of  the  Divine  Spirit  no  more  disturbs  its  hu- 
man adaptations  than  the  organic  structure  of  a  tree 
is  damaged  by  the  sunlight  which  produces  it.  It  is 
the  attempted  elimination  of  the  supernatural  which 
is  really  at  war  with  the  organism  of  prophecy ;  for 
this  deprives  it  of  its  necessary  point  of  departure  by 
first  sweeping  away  the  Mosaic  revelation  ;  it  annihil- 
ates the  vital  force  which  gave  it  being,  and,  by  the 
necessity  under  which  it  is  of  dislocating  its  several 
parts,  shows  them  in  a  false  juxtaposition,  and  sets 
aside  the  evidence  of  the  genetic  process  through 
which  it  has  passed. 

And  the  naturalistic  is  so  far  from  being  the  his- 
torico-critical  method  that  it  really  sets  at  defiance  a 
sound  historical  criticism,  and  bases  itself  on  the 
wildest  and  most  unsupported  vagaries  instead.  We 
do  not  shut  our  eyes  to  the  good  service  which 
critics,  even  of  the  most  ultra  type,  have  rendered 
to  biblical  studies  by  their  investigations  and  dis- 
cussions. They  have  ruthlessly  run  their  plough- 
share through  what  is  venerable  and  sacred,  yet  they 
have,  after  all,  aided  in  opening  up  the  soil  for  culti- 
vation, and  have  brought  much  that  is  valuable  to  the 
surface.  And  supernaturalists  have  not  disdained  to 
learn  from  their  antagonists.  Dr.  Kuenen  points  to 
this  with  a  triumphant  air,  and  hastily  infers  (p.  7)  : 
"  The  dissolution  of  the  traditional  theory  is  already 
in  rapid  progess.  It  is  with  it  as  with  a  beleaguered 
fortress :  it  has  not  yet  been  abandoned  or  formally 
surrendered,  but  the  enemy  enters  unopposed,  by  more 


l8o  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

than  one  breach,  and  some  of  its  main  bulwarks  are 
either  defended  no  longer  or  defended  very  feebly." 
This  is  altogether  too  fast  and  too  sweeping  when  the 
only  ground  alleged  for  it  is  that  broader  views  now 
prevail  than  those  which  limited  "  prophecy  to  pre- 
diction, the  office  of  the  Prophet  to  announcing  the 
secrets  of  the  future."  The  disproportionate  promi- 
nence given  by  some  early  writers,  and  especially 
those  engaged  in  the  controversy  with  the  Deists,  to 
the  apologetic  use  of  prophecy,  has  been  moderated 
by  exalting  other  features  of  the  Prophets'  work  in  due 
measure.  But  this  involves  no  abandonment  of  any 
important  principle.  The  predictive  quality  of  proph- 
ecy is  affirmed  as  strongly  as  ever.  It  simply  falls 
into  its  place  in  the  general  function  of  the  Prophets 
as  teachers  sent  from  God.  This  is  not  to  endanger 
the  citadel,  but  to  fortify  the  approaches  and  to  ex- 
tend and  strengthen  the  outworks. 

With  much  more  reason  it  might  be  retorted  that 
the  positions  of  the  antagonists  of  a  supernatural  reve- 
lation have  been  and  are  in  constant  flux.  The  whole 
field  over  which  the  battle  has  been  waged  is  strewn 
with  their  spiked  guns  and  abandoned  intrenchments. 
Hypothesis  has  succeeded  hypothesis,  only  to  be  in 
its  turn  discarded.  The  allegation  of  imposture  and 
of  unworthy  motives,  once  so  rife,  is  entirely  given 
up.  Dr.  Kuenen  is  at  great  pains  to  show  that  he 
does  not  impugn  the  Prophets'  integrity  in  any  way. 
**  The  charges  which,  more  than  a  hundred  years  ago, 
were  here  and  there  brought  against  the  Prophets  of 
Israel  are  all  silenced.     In  high  estimation  of  their 


AND  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL.  i8l 

aim  and  their  work,  all  are  agreed."  In  other  matters, 
too,  there  is  the  utmost  discordance.  While  on  the 
one  hand  some  are,  as  Mr.  Muir  concedes  (p.  xxvii.) 
concerning  Professor  Reuss,  ''  more  conservative  and 
apologetic  "  than  Dr.  Kuenen,  and  Dr.  Kuenen  cen- 
sures some  of  his  party  as  not  sufficiently  thorough- 
going, he  is  himself,  on  the  other  hand,  vehemently 
attacked  by  others  as  not  sufficiently  advanced  in  his 
positions.  As  to  the  real  nature  of  prophecy,  the 
age  of  the  Prophets  respectively,  what  are  to  be  con- 
sidered their  genuine  productions,  and  in  what  es- 
teem they  are  to  be  held,  there  is  no  little  variance  in 
the  critical  camp. 

Professor  Kuenen  proposes  to  settle  the  strife  be- 
tween the  supernatural  and  the  naturalistic  view  of 
prophecy  by  the  single  test  of  its  fulfilment.  To  this 
we  cheerfully  assent.  It  is  a  test  to  which  the  sa- 
cred writers  themselves  appeal  (Deut.  xviii.  21,  22; 
Isai.  xliii.  9-12;  Jer.  xxviii.  9);  it  is  palpable,  obvi- 
ous, and  easily  applied.  If  these  predictions  have 
been  fulfilled,  they  are  from  God ;  if  not,  they  cannot 
be  from  him. 

He  divides  (p.  25)  the  sources  of  our  information 
respecting  the  predictions  in  the  Old  Testament  into 
three  classes,  viz. :  — 

"  1st.  Writings  of  Prophets. 

**  2d.  Historical  accounts  regarding  what  the  Proph- 
ets have  done  and  spoken. 

"  3d.  Words  of  God  addressed  to  historical  person- 
ages, and  incorporated  in  the  narratives  concerning 
them." 


1 82  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

There  Is  an  undoubted  propriety  in  giving  prece- 
dence in  this  investigation  to  the  prophetical  books, 
in  which  the  utterances  of  the  Prophets  are  recorded 
by  themselves  ;  since  the  predictions  scattered  through 
the  historical  books  come  to  us  at  second-hand,  and 
are,  moreover,  much  more  limited  in  extent.  In 
conceding  this,  however,  we  yield  nothing  to  the 
disadvantage  of  the  trustworthiness  of  the  latter. 
The  suspicions  insinuated  respecting  their  accuracy 
are  altogether  groundless ;  they  may  be  and  are  as 
reliable  as  any  other  historical  statements. 

But  have  the  books  attributed  to  the  Prophets 
really  proceeded  from  them,  and  to  what  dates  are 
they  to  be  assigned?  Here  Dr.  Kuenen  finds  it  im- 
possible to  make  out  his  case  without  availing  him- 
self of  some  modern  critical  conclusions  at  variance 
with  the  concurrent  and  accredited  belief  of  ages,  and 
at  variance  with  statements  contained  in  these  books 
themselves,  —  conclusions  which  are  largely  based  on 
an  assumption  of  the  very  point  at  issue.  A  large 
part  of  the  Book  of  Isaiah,  every  passage  in  which  a 
knowledge  of  the  Babylonish  captivity  is  implied  or  is 
supposed  to  be  implied,  is  denied  to  him  and  assigned 
to  the  period  of  the  Exile ;  and  this  notwithstanding 
the  independent  testimony  of  the  author  of  the  Book 
of  Kings  (il.  Kings,  xx.  16-18),  that  this  captivity 
was  explicitly  foretold  by  Isaiah ;  notwithstanding, 
too,  the  fact  that  it  was  also  with  like  explicitness 
predicted  by  his  contemporary  Micah  (iv.  10);  and 
that  the  overthrow  of  Judah  by  distant  and  terri- 
ble foes  is  repeatedly  declared  in  passages  of  Isaiah 


AND  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL.  183 

which  even  Dr.  Kuenen  confesses  to  be  genuine,  (e.g. 
V.  26-30)  —  as  it  had  been  in  fact  foreshown  by  Moses 
ages  before  (Lev.  xxvi. ;  Deut  xxviii.)  —  an  over- 
throw which  he  further  affirms  was  not  to  be  effected 
either  by  Syria  (vii.  5-8)  or  by  Assyria  (x.  5-34). 
Jeremiah's  prediction  of  Babylon's  overthrow  (chs.  1., 
h.)  is  attributed  to  some  nameless  author  of  a  later 
time,  notwithstanding  the  express  statement  of  its 
special  title  (1.  i),  affirming  it  to  be  by  Jeremiah,  the 
circumstantial  narrative  at  its  close  (li.  59-64),  and 
the  additional  declaration  that  he  did  predict  the 
fall  and  utter  desolation  of  Babylon  (xxv.  12,  13). 
The  genuineness  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  is  also  denied, 
and  it  is  declared  to  be  the  product  of  the  period  of 
the  Maccabees.  There  are  besides  some  other  de- 
rangements of  the  true  order,  of  minor  consequence; 
Joel  and  Obadiah  are  put  a  century  and  a  half  later 
than  they  belong,  while  half  of  the  Book  of  Zechariah 
is  taken  from  him  and  referred  to  an  earlier  date  with 
a  motive  which  will  appear  hereafter. 

It  would  divert  us  too  much  from  our  present  pur- 
pose to  undertake  here  the  defence  of  those  books,  or 
parts  of  books,  which  Dr.  Kuenen  sets  aside  as  not 
genuine.  They  have  been  abundantly  vindicated  by 
able  critical  scholars.  We  simply  remark,  in  passing, 
that  the  allegation  that  these  predictions  were  written 
after  the  event  is  equivalent  to  a  confession  of  the 
accuracy  of  their  fulfilment  which  cannot  otherwise  be 
evaded.  But  the  question  at  issue  can  be  settled  by 
prophecies  whose  genuineness  no  one  has  yet  ven- 
tured to  dispute.     After  all  that  has  been  done  in  the 


184  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

way  of  attempted  elimination,  enough  remain  to  estab- 
lish unmistakably  the  divine  origin  of  prophecy.  If 
this  can  be  first  settled  by  what  Dr.  Kuenen  himself 
confesses  to  be  the  genuine  productions  of  the  Proph- 
ets, he  will  no  longer  have  the  same  motive  to  deny 
the  genuineness  of  the  rest,  especially  when  it  appears, 
as  is  in  truth  the  case,  that,  even  on  his  own  critical 
hypotheses,  these  latter  still  afford  evidence  of  divine 
prescience;  for  they  contain  predictions  reaching 
beyond  the  date  at  which  he  alleges  that  they  were 
written,  and  which  have  been  manifestly  fulfilled. 

Dr.  Kuenen  groups  what  he  calls  the  unfulfilled 
prophecies  under  three  heads,  as  they  severally  re- 
late to  (i)  the  destiny  of  the  heathen  nations,  (2)  the 
judgments  pronounced  upon  Israel,  and  (3)  the 
expectations  of  the  Prophets  with  regard  to  Israel's 
future.  It  will  be  convenient  to  follow  him  in  this 
arrangement. 

The  first  instance  adduced  is  this  (p.  102):  *' The 
Prophets  are  unanimous  in  announcing  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  cities  of  the  Philistines."  Whereupon  he 
confesses  :  "  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  scarcely  any  traces 
remain  of  the  very  ancient  glory  of  the  five  cities. 
They  have  shared  in  the  same  fate  that  has  smitten 
the  whole  of  Palestine.  They  have  been  laid  desolate 
or  have  gradually  decayed ;  after  Jerusalem,  indeed, 
but  still  like  her,  they  too  have  fallen."  This,  how- 
ever, he  refuses  to  accept  as  the  proper  fulfilment  of 
the  predictions  for  two  reasons.  First,  because  "  the 
judgment  contemplated  is  plainly  one  that  would  be 
executed  soo7i.     When  delayed  for  a  long  period  it 


AND  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL.  1 85 

ceased  to  be  a  judgment,  especially  in  such  cases  as 
we  find  in  Amos  (i.  6-8)  and  Ezekiel  (xxv.  15-17), 
where  a  specific  sin  is  mentioned  as  the  reason  of 
Jahveh's  displeasure."  But  why  the  divine  retribution 
forfeits  its  character  if  it  does  not  occur  soon  is  not 
very  clear.  There  is  something  striking,  no  doubt, 
in  a  penalty  that  follows  swiftly  upon  the  heels  of 
transgression.  And  yet  most  men  would  concede 
equal  impressiveness  to  a  doom  which  is  sure  to  come, 
however  long  delayed.  The  length  of  the  interval 
renders  it  all  the  more  certain  that  God  does  not 
forget,  and  that  even-handed  justice  will  not  fail 
eventually  to  strike  its  mark.  And,  in  particular,  that 
the  Prophets,  with  whom  we  are  now  concerned,  did 
not  judge  it  essential  that  a  recompense  must  be 
speedy  appears  both  from  their  directly  declaring  the 
reverse  (Ilab.  ii.  3),  and  from  their  undisturbed  confi- 
dence when  this  very  demand  was  made  by  presump- 
tuous sinners  of  their  own  day  (Isai.  v.  19;  Jer.  xvii. 
15;  Amos,  V.  18).  This  Dr.  Kuenen  seems  hereto 
have  overlooked,  though  his  memory  is  less  treacher- 
ous in  another  place  when  he  has  an  end  to  answer 
by  it  (p.  360)  :  "  The  fulfilment  of  their  predictions 
can  be  to  themselves,  to  a  certain  extent,  matter  of 
indifTerence ;  that  is  to  say,  the  fulfilment  in  this  or 
that  specific  form  at  that  specific  time.  It  is  to  them 
a  settled  truth  that  Jahveh  is  righteous,  and  not  less 
that  at  some  period  his  righteousness  shall  be  revealed 
in  a  dazzling  and  unmistakable  manner;  but  how  and 
wJien  this  revelation  shall  take  place  is  a  question  of 
subordinate  importance.  .  .  .  If  it  is  not  fulfilled  now, 


1 86  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

then  it  will  be  fulfilled  at  a  later  time."  If  now,  by 
Dr.  Kuenen's  own  confession,  the  element  of  time 
enters  so  little  into  the  Prophet's  expectations,  by 
what  right  can  it  be  demanded  that  the  prediction 
must  be  fulfilled  speedily,  or  it  is  no  fulfilment  at  all 
in  the  sense  intended  by  the  Prophet?  This  is  surely 
unreasonable,  unless  he  has  himself  specified  some 
limit  within  which  it  must  occur. 

Is  this  done  in  the  present  instance?  There  is  no 
pretence  of  it  in  Amos,  Joel  (iii.  4-8),  Ezekiel,  Zeph- 
aniah  (ii.  4-7),  or  Zechariah  (ix.  5-7);  only  Isaiah 
(xiv.  31)  and  Jeremiah  (xlvii.  2)  speak  of  a  calam- 
ity to  come  upon  Philistia  from  the  north;  and 
"  whenever  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah  make  mention  of  an 
enemy  out  of  the  north,  they  intimate,  in  no  doubtful 
manner,  that  they  are  thinking,  the  former  of  the 
Assyrians,  the  latter  of  the  Chaldeans."  Well,  did 
the  Assyrians  and  Chaldeans  bring  the  predicted  dis- 
tress upon  Philistia?  Assyrian  monuments  furnish 
abundant  evidence  on  this  point.  Sargon  took  Ha- 
nun.  King  of  Gaza,  prisoner  and  led  him  away  into 
Assyria.^  The  King  of  Ashdod  made  his  submission 
to  Sennacherib,  while  the  King  of  Ashkelon  with  his 
whole  family  were  carried  captive  to  Assyria,  and  a 
vassal  placed  upon  the  throne  in  his  stead ;  the  prin- 
ces of  Ekron  were  slain  and  impaled,  numbers  of  the 
people  sold  as  slaves,  and  a  king  created  subject  to 
Assyria.^  Esarhaddon  and  Assurbanipal  include  the 
kings  of  Gaza,  Ashkelon,  Ekron,  and  Ashdod  in  their 

1  Oppert,  *'  Les  Inscriptions  Assyriennes  des  Sargonides,"  p.  36. 

2  Ibid  ,  pp.  44,  45. 


AND  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL.  187 

lists  of  tributary  monarchs.^  And  as  Nebuchadnez- 
zar subdued  Phenicia  and  Syria,  and  carried  his  arms 
into  Egypt,^  he  must  have  overrun  the  whole  Philis- 
tine region.  So  far,  therefore,  from  these  prophecies 
remaining  unaccomplished,  the  very  fulfilment  that 
Dr.  Kuenen  asks  for  did  take  place.  The  Philistines 
were  chastised  by  both  Assyria  and  Babylon,  and  the 
judgment  predicted,  instead  of  ceasing  with  these 
preliminary  fulfilments,  went  on  until  the  region  was 
reduced  to  the  desolation  that  it  now  is. 

But  Dr.  Kuenen's  second  objection  is  that  "  the 
punishment  of  the  Philistines  takes  place,  according 
to  the  Prophets,  in  the  interest  of  Israel.  It  is 
against  the  people  of  Jahveh  that  they  have  trans- 
gressed ;  it  is  the  people  of  Jahveh,  therefore,  that 
shall  reap  the  fruits  of  their  destruction,  take  posses- 
sion of  their  territory,  and  incorporate  the  remnant  of 
them  with  themselves.  In  other  words,  with  the 
Prophets  the  lot  of  the  Philistines  forms  a  contrast  to 
that  of  the  Israelites.  In  the  Prophecy  of  Isaiah, 
Zion,  founded  by  Jahveh,  and  a  safe  refuge  for  the 
poor  of  his  people,  stands  in  opposition  to  Philistia, 
whose  inhabitants  perish  by  famine  and  sword.  The 
same  Prophet  expects  that  the  reunited  tribes  '  shall 
fly  upon  the  shoulder  of  the  Philistines  toward  the 
west,'  —  that  is,  shall  extend  their  dominion  in  that 
direction  and  make  the  Philistines  subject  to  them." 
We  might  point  him  to  the  fact  that  the  Jews  under 
Jonathan    Maccabseus    and  Alexander   Janna^us    did 

1  Schrader,  "  Keilinschriften  und  Altes  Testament,"  pp.  229,  230. 

2  Josephus  against  Apion,  I.  19. 


1 88  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

capture  the  Philistine  cities,  that  the  name  PhlHstlne 
thenceforward  ceased  out  of  history,  and  that  the 
population  of  the  region  was  subsequently  absorbed 
into  or  supplanted  by  Jewish  residents.  But  has  not 
the  ancient  glory  of  Israel  faded  away  as  well  as  that 
of  the  Philistines?  Instead  of  the  contrast  which 
prophecy  leads  us  to  anticipate,  have  they  not  alike 
fallen  Into  decline  and  ruin?  The  answer  to  this 
question  obviously  involves  the  correctness  of  the 
prophetic  expectations  regarding  Israel,  and,  to  avoid 
needless  repetition,  must  be  reserved  until  the  proph- 
ecies respecting  Israel  come  regularly  before  us  in 
the  course  of  our  inquiry.  Meanwhile  let  it  be  noted 
here  that  all  that  the  Prophets  have  said  concerning 
the  Philistines  has  been  in  the  fullest  and  strictest 
sense  accomplished.  The  only  point  which,  for  the 
reason  stated,  we  leave  unsettled  at  this  stage  of  the 
discussion  Is,  Do  the  fortunes  of  Israel  stand  in  the 
required  contrast  to  those  of  Phlllstia? 

The  next  prophecies  adduced  are  those  against  Tyre 
by  Isaiah  (xxlii.)  and  Ezeklel  (xxvi-xxvIII.).  Of 
the  latter  Dr.  Kuenen  says  (p.  107)  :  ''What  he  pre- 
dicts for  Tyre  Is  nothing  less  than  entire  destruction. 
The  many  nations  that  march  against  her  to  battle 
'  shall  destroy  her  walls  and  break  down  her  towers.* 
Jahveh  'shall  sweep  away  her  dust  —  the  layer  of 
earth  on  which  her  houses  and  gardens  were  placed 
—  and  make  her  a  bare  rock.'  Thus  she  shall  be- 
come *  a  place  where  men  spread  nets  in  the  midst  of 
the  sea.'  The  multitude  of  nations  that  execute  this 
judgment  are  led  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  the   king  of 


AND  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL.  189 

kings.  He  shall  lay  siege  to  the  city,  and  finally 
*  shall  enter  in  through  her  gates  as  men  enter  into  a 
conquered  town.'  Then  plundering  and  devastation 
follow  until  Tyre  has  ceased  to  exist." 

Now,   Dr.   Kuenen  confesses   that   *'  Tyre    capitu- 
lated "    to    Nebuchadnezzar  at   the  end  of  his  lono- 

o 

siege  of  thirteen  years,  and  "  wholly  or  partially  lost 
her  independence."  And  that  this  was  really  the 
case  is  abundantly  demonstrated  in  Movers'  elaborate 
investigation  of  this  point,^  an  author  whom  none  can 
suspect  of  being  biassed  in  his  conclusions  by  a  re- 
gard for  the  authority  of  the  Prophet.  He  further 
admits,  what  is  too  palpable  to  be  denied,  that  Tyre 
is  at  present  *'an  insignificant  fishing  village."  Every 
trait  in  the  prophetic  description  has  long  since  been 
matched  by  the  event.  But  he  complains  that  this 
desolation  was  not  effected  all  at  once ;  the  fulfilment 
of  the  prophecy  was  not  exhausted  by  the  victory  of 
Nebuchadnezzar.  The  city  was  not  laid  waste  by 
him,  nor  its  trade  destroyed.  It  continued  to  be  a 
powerful  and  wealthy  merchant  city  even  under  the 
Persian  dominion.  All  that  the  prophecy  declares 
has  come  to  pass.  The  correspondence  between  the 
word  of  the  Prophet  and  the  condition  to  which  this 
mistress  of  the  seas  has  been  reduced  is  signal  and 
undeniable.  But  this  was  not  brought  about  by 
Nebuchadnezzar  alone.  It  was  not  the  issue  of  his 
single  siege.  It  was  not  accomplished  in  one  age, 
nor  by  the  operation  of  any  one  cause.  The  city  was 
weakened  and  humbled  by  Nebuchadnezzar.     It  was 

1  "  Das  Phoenizische  Alterthum,"  i.  427-450, 


I  go  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

Still  further  humiliated  by  Alexander  the  Great. 
Other  wars  and  struggles  followed.  Other  causes 
conspired  to  dry  up  the  sources  of  its  prosperity. 
And  because  the  desolation  described  by  the  Prophet 
was  only  fully  reached  after  a  long  interval,  and  was 
the  result  of  many  combined  influences,  it  is  most 
strangely  argued  that  this  must  not  be  regarded  as 
the  fulfilment  of  Ezekiel's  prediction.  One  would 
think  that  the  greater  the  lapse  of  time  and  the  more 
complicated  the  causes  at  work,  the  more  decisive 
and  complete  would  be  the  evidence  of  a  far-reach- 
ing foresight,  and  that  it  was  no  merely  human  cal- 
culation from  limited  and  imperfect  data.  The  proof 
of  prophetic  power  is  surely  not  diminished  or  de- 
stroyed because  that  is  foretold  which  only  He  could 
know  who  sees  the  end  from  the  beginning,  and  to 
whom  a  thousand  years  are  as  one  day. 

But,  says  Dr.  Kuenen,  ''  is  it  not  clear  as  day  that 
it  [the  prophecy  of  Ezekiel]  announces  the  over- 
throw of  the  Phenicians  as  being  close  at  hand?'' 
The  Prophet  says  no  such  thing.  On  the  contrary, 
it  is  *'  clear  as  day "  that  such  a  limitation  of  the 
prophecy  to  what  was  *'  close  at  hand  "  is  wholly  gra- 
tuitous, and  is  a  covert  assumption  of  the  very  ques- 
tion at  issue.  If  the  announcement  made  by  Ezekiel 
were  only  a  shrewd  conjecture  from  the  existing  po- 
litical situation,  the  prophetic  horizon  would  have  to 
be  narrowed  accordingly,  and  nothing  that  was  re- 
mote, or  that  was  dependent  upon  causes  not  yet 
apparent,  could  be  admitted  to  fall  within  its  scope. 
And  after  the  -prophecy  has  thus  been  degraded  to  a 


AND  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL.  191 

merely  human  anticipation,  it  is  comparatively  easy 
to  show  that  it  has  failed.  Eliminate  or  refuse  to 
recognize  the  stamp  of  its  divinity,  and  its  non-fulfil- 
ment naturally  follows;  for  that  is  tacitly  involved  in 
the  primary  assumption.  Only  it  is  strange,  on  Dr. 
Kuenen's  view  of  the  case,  if  the  prophecy  in  its  true 
intent,  as  understood  by  Ezekiel  and  his  hearers,  was 
restricted  to  events  "  close  at  hand,"  that  they  could 
themselves  have  retained  any  confidence  in  it  as  a 
message  from  God ;  for  it  was  falsified  before  it  was 
even  put  on  record.  The  siege  of  Tyre  came  to  an 
end  years  before  the  Book  of  Ezekiel  was  issued,  and 
Tyre  still  survived.  Now,  if  no  exactness  of  corres- 
pondence in  the  future  between  the  event  and  the 
terms  of  the  prediction  could  be  a  fulfilment  of  the 
latter  in  the  sense  put  upon  it  by  the  Prophet  and  his 
contemporaries,  how  does  it  come  to  pass  that  it  was 
not  utterly  discredited  in  their  esteem  and  refused  a 
place  in  this  collection  professing  to  be  uttered  under 
the  immediate  inspiration  of  God? 

Dr.  Kuenen  himself,  when  he  would  convert  proph- 
ecy into  a  vague  presentiment,  or  a  pious  deduction 
from  the  moral  government  of  God,  admits  that  the 
time  when  Jehovah's  righteousness  should  be  revealed 
is,  to  the  Prophets,  '*a  question  of  subordinate  impor- 
tance" (p.  360).  They  were  convinced  that  the 
haughty  oppressors  of  His  people  would  some  time 
be  laid  low  by  His  avenging  arm,  but  it  was  not  in- 
dispensable that  this  should  be  done  immediately. 
**When  their  anticipations  were  not  realized,  they 
will  have  easily  satisfied  themselves  with  the  thought 


192  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS^ 

that  the  fulfilment  would  doubtless  occur  at  a  later 
period.  In  truth  it  makes  a  very  essential  difference 
whether  any  event  is  estimated  in  and  on  account  of 
itself  or  as  tJie  form  in  zvJiicJi  something  else  is  re- 
vealed. In  the  first  case  its  non-realization  is  a  bitter 
disappointment,  and  for  him  who  announced  it  a 
painful  humiliation ;  but  this  bitterness  and  this  pain 
are  not  felt  when  recourse  is  at  once  had  to  the  con- 
viction :  if  it  is  not  fulfilled  now,  then  it  will  be  ful- 
filled at  a  later  time ;  the  righteousness  of  Jahveh 
endures  and  inust  positively  some  time  come  to 
light."  ^  Dr.  Kuenen  fancies  that  Ezekiel  himself 
expected  Nebuchadnezzar  to  accomplish  all  that  he 
uttered  in  his  prediction  respecting  Tyre.  This  is 
nowhere  stated  in  the  prediction  itself  It  is  merely 
Dr.  Kuenen's  opinion.  But  suppose  him  to  be  cor- 
rect ;  what  then  ?  We  do  not  claim  omniscience  for 
the  Prophet,  but  simply  inspiration  and  unerring 
truth  for  his  prediction.  And  even  on  the  low  view 
of  prophecy  entertained  by  Dr.  Kuenen,  the  essential 
thing  in  the  Prophet's  mind  was  the  vindication  of 
God's  righteous  judgment;  the  time  Vvdien  this  should 
take  place  was  of  little  consequence.  The  fact,  not 
the  period  of  its  manifestation,  was  what  he  regarded 
as  absolutely  certain.  Whenever  this  manifestation 
should  occur,  it  would  be  to  him  the  fulfilment  of  his 
prediction.  How  can  Dr.  Kuenen,  therefore,  on  his 
own  principles,  justify  his  assertion  that  the  event 
must  be   ''  close    at   hand "    in    order   to   verify   the 

1  The  italics  in  the  various  quotations  from  Dr.  Kuenen  are  invari- 
ably his  own. 


AND  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL.  1 93 

Prophet's  anticipation?  Much  less  can  it  be  neces- 
sary to  the  accomplishment  of  that  which  is  a  direct 
revelation  from  the  omniscient  God  himself.  In  fact, 
it  looks  somewhat  like  grasping  both  horns  of  a  di- 
lemma at  oncQ,  w^hen  Dr.  Kuenen,  in  his  zeal  to  fasten 
human  infirmity  on  the  prophecies,  affirms  with  one 
breath  that  a  particular  event  "  close  at  hand  "  must 
have  been  intended  by  them,  so  that  nothing  else  can 
be  a  fulfilment  of  them,  and  with  the  next  declares 
that  the  manifestation  of  Jehovah's  righteousness  is 
the  one  fixed  conviction  of  the  Prophets,  irrespective 
of  either  time  or  mode. 

But,  says  Dr.  Kuenen,  "  Ezekiel  himself  declares 
that  his  expectations  concerning  the  fate  of  Tyre  were 
not  realized"  (Ezek.  xxix.  18-20).  "Son  of  man, 
Nebuchadrezzar  King  of  Babylon  caused  his  army  to 
serve  a  great  service  against  Tyre :  every  head  was 
made  bald,  and  every  shoulder  was  peeled :  yet  had 
he  no  wages,  nor  his  army,  for  Tyre,  for  the  service 
that  he  had  served  against  it ;  "  whereupon  the  land 
of  Egypt  is  promised  him  for  his  wages.  Dr.  Kuenen 
very  naturally  apprehends  that  this  proof  will  be  sus- 
pected of  being  so  very  strong  as  to  be  worth  noth- 
ing (p.  no):  "How  by  any  possibility  can  Ezekiel 
come  forward  as  a  witness  against  the  realization  of 
his  own  prophecy?"  The  fact  is  that  the  sense  put 
upon  this  passage  is  an  utter  perversion  of  its  mean- 
ing. Nebuchadnezzar  must  have  performed  the  work 
against  Tyre  which  the  LoRD  had  assigned  to  him, 
or  he  would  not  have  earned  the  wages  which  are 
here  promised  him  and  declared  to  be  rightfully  his. 

13 


194  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

The  Prophet  revokes  nothing  of  his  former  predic- 
tion. He  confesses  to  no  faikire  or  disappointed  ex- 
pectations. He  makes  no  attempt  to  accommodate 
the  expressions  which  he  had  previously  used  to  an 
event  which  had  turned  out  differently  from  his  antic- 
ipations.  He  simply  says,  Nebuchadnezzar  has  done 
his  work,  which  was  an  exceedingly  toilsome  one, 
and  has  thereby  earned  larger  wages  than  the  spoils 
of  Tyre  afforded  him ;  he  shall  have  Egypt  in  addi- 
tion to  make  up  full  payment.  There  is  nothing 
surely  in  this  that  looks  as  though  Ezekiel  regarded 
his  prophecy  against  Tyre  as  having  failed  in  so  far 
as  respects  the  work  committed  to  Nebuchadnezzar, 
but  the  very  reverse. 

Nevertheless,  says  Dr.  Kuenen,  ''  this  much  is  plain, 
that  Nebuchadnezzar  did  not  enter  in  through  the 
gates  of  Tyre  as  men  enter  into  a  conquered  city  " 
(Ezek.  xxvi.  lo).  How  does  he  know?  And  **  as 
little  did  his  troops  carry  away  the  wealth  of  Tyre 
and  plunder  her  merchandise"  (ver.  12).  Tyre  was 
open  seaward  during  the  entire  siege.  The  wealthiest 
citizens  may  have  fled  to  distant  colonies  and  taken 
their  goods  with  them  (Isai.  xxiii.  6,  7,  12).  The 
treasures  of  their  sanctuaries  may  hkewise  have  been 
temporarily  removed  for  safe-keeping.  And  the 
terms  of  the  capitulation,  of  which  we  know  nothing, 
may  have  limited  the  amount  that  the  conqueror 
should  receive.  It  is  very  easy  to  understand  how  he 
could  have  "  made  a  spoil  of  its  riches,"  and  yet  not 
be  adequately  paid  for  his  long  and  toilsome  service. 

In  regard  to  Isaiah's  prediction  against  Tyre  (xxiii.), 


AND  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL.  195 

Dr.  Kucnen  complains  that  its  fulfilment  is  sometimes 
sought  in  the  siege  of  that  city  by  Shalmaneser,  King 
of  Assyria,  and  sometimes  in  that  by  Nebuchadnezzar ; 
and  he  insists  that  a  choice  must  be  made  between 
them.  But  what  is  there  to  hinder  its  embracing 
both?  It  is  a  declaration  of  God's  work  of  judgment 
upon  Tyre,  to  be  executed  partly  by  one  instrument 
and  partly  by  another,  which  in  the  actual  unfoldings 
of  history  met  its  partial  accomplishment  in  different 
periods  successively,  but  is  here  gathered  up  into  a 
single  picture  of  its  future  destiny. 

To  the  general  prediction  of  its  overthrow,  the 
Prophet  adds  the  specific  statement  (vers.  15-18)  that 
Tyre  shall  be  forgotten  seventy  years,  after  which  her 
trade  shall  revive,  and  her  gains,  instead  of  being 
treasured  up  for  her  own  advantage,  shall  be  holiness 
to  the  Lord.  Dr.  Kuenen  remarks  that  "  facts  like 
those  announced  here  cannot  pass  aw^ay  without  leav- 
ing some  traces."  And  they  have  not  done  so,  even 
though  he  professes  that  he  has  not  been  able  to  find 
them.  The  term  of  her  humiliation  is  at  once  ex- 
plained by  the  declaration  of  Jeremiah  (xxv.  11),  that 
the  land  of  Judah  and  all  contiguous  nations,  among 
whom  (ver.  22)  Tyre  is  expressly  included,  should 
serve  the  King  of  Babylon  seventy  years.  This  is 
precisely  the  interval  between  the  decisive  victory 
gained  by  Nebuchadnezzar  at  Carchemish  over  Pha- 
raoh-necho  King  of  Egypt  (Jer.  xlvi.  2),  which  opened 
his  way  to  Jerusalem  and  the  neighboring  kingdoms 
that  had  combined  against  him,  and  the  conquest  of 
Babylon  by  Cyrus.     That  Tyre  continued  after  its 


196  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

siege  by  Nebuchadnezzar  to  be  subject  to  Babylon, 
till  the  latter  city  itself  was  overthrown  by  Cyrus,  is  ap- 
parent from  an  extract  which  Josephus^  has  fortunately 
preserved  for  us  from  Tyre's  own  annals.  This  in- 
forms us  that  Hiram,  who  was  reigning  in  Tyre  when 
Cyrus  became  king  of  Persia,  as  well  as  his  brother 
and  predecessor,  had  been  brought  from  Babylon  to 
be  placed  upon  the  throne. 

But  what  shall  be  said  of  the  predicted  conversion 
of  this  heathen  city,  with  its  wealth,  to  the  service  of 
the  Lord?  There  has  been  an  incipient  fulfilment 
of  this  which  should  not  be  overlooked.  Tyre  had  its 
Christian  disciples  in  the  days  of  the  apostles  (Acts, 
xxi.  3-6),  and  subsequently  a  flourishing  church.  It 
was  the  seat  of  a  bishop ;  its  cathedral  was  the  most 
elegant  structure  in  Phenicia ;  synods  were  held  there. 
It  had  a  Christian  population  down  to  the  time  of  the 
Crusades,  when  it  was  erected  into  a  Latin  arch- 
bishopric under  the  patriarch  of  Jerusalem.  One  of 
the  most  noticeable  among  the  ruins  of  ancient  Tyre 
is  that  of  a  Christian  church,  which  was  originally  a 
large  and  splendid  structure.  This,  however,  is  but 
the  budding  of  a  fulfilment,  and  by  no  means  all  that 
the  prophecy  leads  us  to  expect.  The  consideration 
of  what  further  is  involved  in  it  can  best  be  postponed 
to  a  subsequent  part  of  this  inquiry,  when  it  shall  be 
taken  up  again,  together  with  the  claim  made  by  Dr. 
Kuenen  (p.  no)  that  the  punishment  of  Tyre,  as  of 

1  Against  Apion,  book  i.  §  21.  A  hint  of  Tyre's  reduced  condition 
at  the  close  of  the  Exile  may  be  found  in  the  fact  that  Zidon  is  men- 
tioned before  it  (Ezra  iii.  7)  instead  of  after  it,  which  is  the  usual 
order. 


AND  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL,  197 

the  other  neighbors  of  Israel,  should  precede  the 
return  of  Israel  to  their  native  land  on  the  ground  of 
Ezek.  xxviii.  24-26.  We  can  only  appreciate  this 
correctly  when  the  prophecies  respecting  Israel  shall 
come  before  us. 

The  next  prediction  introduced  is  that  of  Jeremiah 
(xlix.  23-27)  against  Damascus,  where  the  whole 
ground  of  cavil  is  based  upon  an  ambiguous  word  in 
the  English  version,  of  which  advantage  is  taken  to 
put  a  sense  upon  it  which  the  original  will  not  at  all 
admit.  "  How  is  the  city  of  praise  not  left !  "  is  thus 
paraphrased,  "  Why  might  not  Damascus  have  re- 
mained? "  and  this  affirmed  to  imply  *'  its  permanent 
desolation ;  "  whereas  the  first  glance  at  the  Hebrew 
is  sufficient  to  show  that  ''  left "  in  this  place  means 
not  permitted  to  remain,  but  forsakeii,  and  there  is 
no  intimation  whatever  that  it  should  not  'survive  or 
recover  from  the  threatened  blow.  In  the  scanty  ac- 
counts that  we  possess  of  this  entire  period,  it  is  not 
surprising  that  the  event  referred  to  has  passed  with- 
out mention.  Josephus  (Ant.  x.  1 1,  i)  speaks  of 
captive  Syrians  taken  to  Babylon  at  the  outset  of 
Nebuchadnezzar's  reign ;  and  the  subsequent  course 
of  events  makes  it  more  than  probable  that  this  was 
again  repeated. 

Of  Ammon  and  Moab  it  is  predicted,  as  Dr. 
Kuenen  states,  that  "  the  two  nations  shall  both  be 
driven  away  or  extirpated,  and  their  cities  shall  be 
laid  waste."  And  he  adds,  "  this  fate  has  in  fact 
overtaken  them."  But  he  objects  (p.  1 14)  that  ''  they 
w^ere  still  inhabited  and  flourishing  up  to  the  seventh 


198  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

century  of  the  Christian  era ;  "  whereas  "  the  Prophets 
do  not  expect  (Isai.  xi.  14,  xxv.  10;  Zeph.  ii.  9,  10) 
that  Moab  and  Ammon  shall  in  the  course  of  ao-es 
lose  their  national  existence  along  with  or  even  after 
Israel,  but  that  Israel  shall  be  a  zvitness  of  the  destruc- 
tion of  their  enemies,  and  shall  7'eap  the  fruits  of  that 
destruction^  "  The  prophecy  that  Israel  shall  appear 
as  the  inheritor  of  Moab  and  Ammon  of  itself  abso- 
lutely forbids  us  to  see  the  realization  of  what 
Zephaniah  expected,  in  the  ruin  of  those  nations  six 
centuries  after  the  second  destruction  of  Jerusalem." 
But  the  punishment  was  not  altogether  postponed  to 
this  late  period.  The  entire  region  was  subdued  and 
ravaged  by  Nebuchadnezzar.  Josephus  (Ant.  x. 
9,  7)  specially  mentions  the  subjugation  of  Ccelesyria, 
Ammon,  and  Moab.  That  he  purposed  specially  to 
attack  the  Ammonites  we  learn  from  Ezek.  xxi.  20; 
and  he  had  reasons  for  so  doing,  both  in  the  combi- 
nation into  which  they  had  entered  against  Chaldea 
(Jer.  xxvii.  3),  and  in  their  harboring  and  perhaps  in- 
stigating Ishmael  the  murderer  of  Gedaliah,  whom 
the  King  of  Babylon  had  made  governor  after  the 
capture  of  Jerusalem  (Jer.  xl.  14,  xli.  2,  15). 

The  relation  of  these  lands  to  Israel  when  restored 
will  be  postponed  until  that  subject  is  considered  in 
connection  with  other  nations. 

For  proof  of  the  fulfilment  of  the  predictions  re- 
specting the  Edomites  we  need  not  go  beyond  that 
furnished  in  Dr.  Kuenen's  own  pages,  and  which  he 
vainly  endeavors  to  set  aside.  In  the  time  of  Malachi, 
as  i.  3,  4  expressly  states,  Esau's  mountains  and  his 


AND  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL.  199 

heritage  were  lying  waste.  If  this  was  effected,  as 
there  is  every  reason  to  believe,  by  Nebuchadnezzar 
in  the  expedition  ^  five  years  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  in  which  he  subjected  the  Ammonites  and 
Moabites  and  advanced  into  Egypt,  then  here  we 
have  the  evidence  that  ''  nearly  a  century  after  the  end 
of  the  captivity,"  when  the  Jews  were  restored  and 
Jerusalem  was  rebuilt,  Edom  was  still  a  desolation, 
and  the  prospect  of  recovery  was  as  remote  as  ever. 
This  certainly  is  not  the  '*  very  opposite  "  of  the  rep- 
resentation in  Joel  iii.  19,  20,  but  precisely  coincident 
with  it.  Obad.  ver.  18  and  Ezek.  xxv.  14  found  ac- 
complishment in  the  spoliation  of  the  Edomites  by 
Judas  Maccabaeus,  then  by  John  Hyrcanus,  ''  who 
completely  subdued  them  about  B.C.  130,  compelled 
them  to  adopt  the  rite  of  circumcision,  and  incorpo- 
rated them  into  the  Jewish  State ;  "  then  ''  by  Simon, 
son  of  Gioras,  the  head  of  one  of  the  factions.  The 
nation  of  the  Edomites  is  mentioned  no  more  after 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  (A.  D.  70)  :  it  was  partly 
incorporated  with  the  Jewish  nation,  partly  blended 
with  other  Arabian  tribes.  Meanwhile  their  former 
capital,  Sela,  and  a  great  part  of  their  ancient  terri- 
tory had  already,  many  centuries  before,  passed  into 
other  hands."  It  is  now  reduced  to  utter  desolation. 
Its  interval  of  wealth  and  flourishing  trade,  during 
which  it  is  better  known  to  us  by  its  Greek  name 
Petra,    and   when    it   was    occupied    by    others  than 

1  Josephus,  Ant.  x.  9,  7.  This  is  not  at  variance  with  Ezek.  xxxv., 
or  xxxvi.  5,  which  were  first  uttered  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  (xxxiii. 
21),  nor  with  Isai.  xxxiv,,  which  was  not  written  in  the  Exile,  but  long 
before  it. 


200  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

Edomites,  does  not  prevent  this  region,  first  wrenched 
from  the  children  of  Esau,  then  wasted  as  at  the 
present  day,  from  bearing  its  striking  testimony  to 
the  truth  of  the  prophecies. 

Ezekiel's  prediction  of  the  forty  years'  desolation 
of  Egypt  (xxix.  11-16)  has  long  proved  perplexing 
to  Interpreters,  and  is,  we  frankly  admit,  somewhat 
difficult  to  reconcile  with  Herodotus's  statement  (ii. 
177)  that  the  reign  of  Amasis,  a  considerable  portion 
of  which  falls  within  this  predicted  term,  "was  the 
most  prosperous  time  that  Egypt  ever  saw."  This  is 
no  new  embarrassment  raised  by  Dr.  Kucnen,  how- 
ever ;  the  whole  matter  had  been  thoroughly  sifted, 
and  everything  possible  to  be  said  had  been  said 
about  It,  before  he  was  born,  and  that  without  shak- 
ing the  confidence  of  those  veteran  scholars  In  the 
divinity  of  the  Prophet's  word.  In  spite  of  Dr. 
Kuenen's  confidence  that  the  result  which  he  has 
obtained  ''  defies  all  reasonable  contradiction  and  will 
In  the  end  be  generally  received,"  we  think  It  can  be 
made  to  appear  that  he  Is  over-hasty  in  his  conclu- 
sions. From  the  time  of  the  decisive  battle  of  Car- 
chemish,  at  all  events,  as  Dr.  Kuenen  correctly  states, 
Jeremiah  predicted  that  Nebuchadnezzar  would  invade 
Egypt  and  subdue  that  country  (Jer.  xlvi.  13-28). 
This  he  still  continued  to  affirm  years  afterwards, 
when  Jerusalem  had  been  destroyed,  and  Gedaliah 
murdered,  and  the  wretched  remnant  of  Jews  fled, 
contrary  to  the  Prophet's  earnest  remonstrance,  to 
Egypt  for  protection  (Jer.  xliil.  8-13,  xliv.  12-14); 
and  the  death  of  King  Pharaoh-hophra,  by  the  hands 


AND  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL.  20I 

of  his  enemies,  is  made  the  sign  of  its  fulfilment  (xliv. 
29,  30).  Ezekiel  repeats,  with  still  more  particularity, 
that  Nebuchadnezzar  shall  invade  the  land  of  Egypt, 
and  that  it  shall  be  desolated  for  forty  years,  and  the 
Egyptians  shall  be  scattered  among  the  nations ;  but 
at  the  end  of  forty  years  they  shall  be  regathered  into 
their  own  land,  though  Egypt  shall  thenceforth  be  a 
base  kingdom,  and  no  more  exalt  itself  above  the 
nations  nor  be  any  more  the  confidence  of  the  House 
of  Israel. 

Now,  of  all  this  Herodotus  gives  no  account.  He 
makes  no  mention  of  the  subjugation  of  Eg}^pt  by 
Nebuchadnezzar.  But  it  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that 
Herodotus  received  his  information  from  Egyptian 
priests,  and  they  did  not  scruple,  as  he  himself  de- 
clares his  belief  more  than  once  (iii.  2,  16),  to  falsify 
the  truth  of  history  in  their  own  interest.  Herodotus 
nowhere  mentions  Pharaoh-necho's  defeat  by  Nebu- 
chadnezzar at  Carchemish,  which  put  an  end  to  Egyp- 
tian rule  in  Asia,  and  this  though  he  speaks  of  that 
very  expedition  of  Necho  and  his  victory  over  Josiah 
at  Megiddo.  He  nowhere  speaks  of  Nebuchadnezzar 
at  all,  or  of  his  coming  into  armed  collision  with 
Egypt.  And  yet  the  silence  of  Herodotus  does  not, 
even  with  Dr.  Kuencn  himself,  discredit  the  battle  of 
Carchemish,  or  call  in  question  its  decisive  character. 
Still  further,  Herodotus  never  alludes  to  the  conquest 
of  Egypt  by  any  king  of  Assyria ;  and  the  assertion 
of  the  capture  of  Thebes  made  by  Nahum  (iii.  8-10) 
was  discredited  by  Dr.  Kuencn  and  other  similar  crit- 
ics, on  the  ground  that  no  ancient  historian  mentions 


202  KUENEN  ON   THE  PROPHETS 

it,  and  the  monuments  existing  in  unbroken  continuity 
make  no  allusion  to  it  and  leave  no  room  for  it.  But 
an  inscription  of  Assurbanipal  was  found  in  which  he 
relates  the  fact,  and  the  critics  were  obliged  to  retract. 
The  records  of  the  Assyrians  are  similarly  oblivious  of 
defeats  suffered  by  themselves.  Sennacherib  records 
in  full  his  annual  successes,  but  makes  no  allusion 
to  his  disastrous  overthrow,  of  which  we  know  both 
from  the  sacred  historians  and  from  Herodotus,  the 
Egyptian  priests  having  no  motive  for  silence  in 
this  instance. 

The  silence  of  Egyptian  informants  is,  therefore, 
not  conclusive  of  the  non-concurrence  of  what  was 
disastrous  to  Egypt  or  mortifying  to  its  pride.  Now, 
if  Dr.  Kuenen  will  but  distinguish  between  what  the 
Prophets  actually  say,  and  what  he  imputes  to  them  as 
their  meaning  but  which  they  do  not  say,  we  do  not 
despair  of  convincing  even  himself  that  what  the  Jew- 
ish Prophets  predict  respecting  Egypt  is  entirely  con- 
sistent with  what  Herodotus  relates  of  the  correspond- 
ing period. 

"  Hophra,"  he  says  (p.  124),  with  a  flourish  of  italics, 
as  though  the  Prophet  were  contradicted  point-blank 
by  the  testimony  of  the  historian,  *'  did  not  fall  in  the 
war  against  Nebuchadnezzar."  Well,  no  Prophet  said 
that  he  would.  Jeremiah  says  (xliv.  30),  speaking 
from  the  mouth  of  God  :  *'  Behold,  I  will  give  Pharaoh- 
hophra,  King  of  Egypt,  into  the  hand  of  his  enemies, 
and  into  the  hand  of  them  that  seek  his  life."  Again 
(xlvi.  26),  "  I  will  deliver  them,"  i.  e.,  Pharaoh  and  all 
them  that  trust  in  him,  **  into  the  hand  of  those  that 


AND  rROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL.  203 

seek  their  lives,  and  into  the  hand  of  Nebuchadrezzar, 
King  of  Babylon,  and  into  the  hand  of  his  servants." 
Now,  what  is  the  testimony  of  Herodotus  ?  It  is  thus 
summed  up  in  Dr.  Kuenen's  own  words :  "  An  insur- 
rection broke  out.  Amasis,  who  was  commissioned 
by  the  king  to  suppress  it,  placed  himself  at  the  head 
of  the  insurgents,  defeated  the  mercenary  forces,  took 
Apries  (Hophra)  prisoner,  and  after  some  hesitation 
consented  to  his  death."  Is  not  the  language  of  Jere- 
miah fulfilled  to  the  letter?  Pharaoh-hophra  was 
delivered  into  the  hand  of  them  that  sought  his  life. 

But  in  his  zeal  to  bring  forth  a  contradiction  where 
there  is  entire  harmony.  Dr.  Kuenen  holds  the  fol- 
lowing most  extraordinary  language:  "The  narrative 
of  Herodotus  leaves  no  room  for  a  temporary  sub- 
jection of  the  Egyptians  to  the  Chaldeans,  or  even 
for  a  successful  invasion  of  their  country  by  Nebu- 
chadnezzar. How  could  Hophra  have  been  able  to 
undertake  an  expedition  against  Cyrene  in  569  B.  C. 
if  in  or  after  570  B.  C.  he  had  been  defeated  by  Neb- 
uchadnezzar? For  in  this  year,  the  twenty-seventh 
of  Ezekiel's  captivity,  the  conquest  of  Egypt  by  the 
Chaldeans  had  not  yet,  according  to  this  Prophet 
himself  (xxix.  17-21),  taken  place.  Is  it  not  ab- 
surd to  suppose  that  it  happened  immediately  there- 
after, still  in  570  B.  C,  and  in  the  following  year 
had  been  already  forgotten."  It  is  astonishing  that 
Dr.  Kuenen  can  either  content  himself  or  expect  to 
blind  his  readers  by  so  transparent  a  trick  as  this. 
He  has  made  an  absurd  supposition,  which  no  one 
dreams  of  entertaining,  as  though  it  were  involved  in 


204  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

the  truth  of  the  Prophet's  prediction,  but  he  has  alto- 
gether evaded  the  simple  and  obvious  explanation  of 
the  case  which  offers  itself  at  once  upon  his  own 
statement  of  the  facts. 

If  Nebuchadnezzar  had  not  yet  invaded  Egypt  570 
B.  C,  and  Hophra  was  involved  in  civil  war  569  B.  c, 
what  more  natural,  or  more  in  accordance  with  the 
usual  policy  of  ambitious  monarchs,  than  that  these 
domestic  disturbances  had  either  been  fomented  for 
the  purpose  or  were  seized  upon  as  the  occasion  of 
foreign  interference  ?  Thus  Sir  Gardner  Wilkinson :  ^ 
"  We  can  readily  imagine  that  the  Assyrians,  having 
extended  their  conquests  to  the  extremity  of  Pales- 
tine, would,  on  the  rumor  of  intestine  commotions  in 
Egypt,  hasten  to  take  advantage  of  the  opportunity 
thus  afforded  them  of  attacking  the  country.  .  .  . 
From  a  comparison  of  all  these  authorities,  I  con- 
clude that  the  civil  war  between  Apries  and  Amasis 
did  not  terminate  in  the  single  conflict  at  Momem- 
phis,  but  lasted  several  years ;  and  that  either  Amasis 
solicited  the  aid  and  intervention  of  Nebuchadnezzar, 
or  this  prince,  availing  himself  of  the  disordered 
state  of  the  country,  of  his  own  accord  invaded  it, 
deposed  the  rightful  sovereign  and  placed  Amasis  on 
the  throne,  on  condition  of  paying  tribute  to  the 
Assyrians.  The  injury  done  to  the  land  and  cities 
of  Egypt  by  this  invasion,  and  the  disgrace  with 
which  the    Egyptians    felt   themselves    overwhelmed 

1  "  Manners  and  Customs  of  the  Ancient  Egyptians,"  vol.  ii.  pp.  177- 
179.  See  also  notes  to  Rawlinson's  Herodotus,  ii.  177,  and  ch.  viii. 
of  Appendix  to  Book  ii.  pp.  322  ff. 


AiXD  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL.  205 

after  such  an  event,  would  justify  the  account  given 
in  the  Bible  of  the  fall  of  Egypt ;  and  to  witness  many 
of  their  compatriots  taken  captive  to  Babylon,  and  to 
become  tributary  to  an  enemy  whom  they  held  in  ab- 
horrence, would  be  considered  by  the  Egyptians  the 
greatest  calamity,  as  though  they  had  forever  lost 
their  station  in  the  scale  of  nations.  And  this  last 
would  satisfactorily  account  for  the  title  of  Melek, 
given  to  inferior  or  to  tributary  kings,  being  applied 
to  Amasis  in  some  of  the  hieroglyphic  legends  ac- 
companying his  name." 

If  this  view  of  Wilkinson  and  others  is  correct,  — 
and  it  is  difficult  to  see  what  well-founded  objection 
can  be  made  to  it,  —  then  it  is  perfectly  easy  to  rec- 
oncile the  statement  of  Herodotus  that  Pharaoh- 
hophra  was  put  to  death  by  the  Egyptians,  to  whom 
he  was  delivered  over  by  Amasis,  and  that  of  Jose- 
phus  that  he  was  slain  by  Nebuchadnezzar.  The 
Egyptians  were  the  immediate  actors,  but  it  was  at 
the  instance  of  the  King  of  Babylon. 

Dr.  Kuenen's  attempt  to  discredit  the  authority  of 
Josephus,  who  here  expressly  vouches  for  the  fulfil- 
ment of  the  Prophet's  predictions,  will  scarcely  gain 
the  approval  of  any  who  do  not  agree  with  him  in 
his  foregone  conclusion.  Josephus^  expressly  ap- 
peals to  the  authority  of  Berosus  for  the  affirmation 
that  Nebuchadnezzar  '*  conquered  Egypt  and  Syria 
and  Phoenicia  and  Arabia,  and  exceeded  in  his  ex- 
ploits all  that  had  reigned  before  him  in  Babylon  and 
Chaldea."     The  charge  that  Berosus  is  "  altogether 

1  "  Against  Apion,"  i.  19. 


206  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

unhistorlcal  "  in  speaking  of  Egypt  as  subject  to  the 
Chaldean  empire  prior  to  the  time  of  Nebuchadnezzar, 
sounds  strangely  since  the  discovery  of  Assurbani- 
pal's  conquest  of  Egypt,  which,  on  the  fall  and  parti- 
tion of  the  Assyrian  empire,  would  come  under  the 
dominion  of  Babylon,  or  at  least  be  claimed  by  it. 
And  how  could  Nebuchadnezzar  have  exceeded  all 
other  monarchs  of  the  great  Asiatic  empire  in  his 
exploits  if  he  failed  in  his  attempt  upon  Egypt,  which 
others  had  subdued?  The  language  of  Megasthenes, 
that  Nebuchadnezzar  ''  subdued  the  greater  part  of 
Libya  and  Iberia,"  is  doubtless  an  exaggeration ;  but 
upon  what  could  such  an  exaggeration  have  been 
built  if  he  never  even  penetrated  into  Africa? 

The  allegation  that  Josephus  infers  his  facts  from 
the  predictions  is  utterly  groundless  and  gratuitous. 
That  he  mentions  ^  the  predictions  respecting  the 
King  of  Babylon's  conquest  of  Egypt,  and  adds 
*'  which  things  came  to  pass,"  implies,  on  the  con- 
trary, that  he  discriminates  between  the  prophecy 
and  its  fulfilment,  and  had  independent  information 
of  the  latter.  That  he  borrows  freely  from  the  his- 
torical statements  of  Jeremiah  is  no  ground  for  the 
unworthy  sneer  that  he  has  been  "  caught  in  the  very 
act "  of  narrating  as  fact  that  for  which  he  had  no 
historical  voucher.  The  circumstance  to  which  Dr. 
Kuenen  appeals  (p.  128),  that  Josephus  does  not  re- 
cord "  the  forty  years  desolation  of  Egypt,  and  the 
subsequent  partial  restoration  which  Ezekiel  men- 
tions," shows  that  he  does  not  simply  and  without 
1  "  Antiquities  of  the  Jews,"  x.  9,  7. 


AND  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL.  207 

warrant  convert  prophecy  into  history,  as  is  charged 
upon  him.  The  attempt  to  involve  Josephus  in  chro- 
nological conflict  both  with  himself  and  with  the 
Prophet  Ezekiel  is  based  upon  the  following  passage 
from  the  section  just  now  quoted  :  ''  On  the  fifth  year 
after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  which  was  the 
twenty-third  of  the  reign  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  he 
made  an  expedition  against  Ccele-Syria,  and  when 
he  had  possessed  himself  of  it,  he  made  war  against 
the  Ammonites  and  Moabites ;  and  when  he  had 
brought  all  those  nations  under  subjection  he  fell 
upon  Egypt  in  order  to  overthrow  it,  and  he  slew  the 
king  that  then  reigned  and  set  up  another,  and  he 
took  those  Jews  that  were  there  captives  and  led  them 
away  to  Babylon."  Upon  this  Dr.  Kuenen  comments 
as  follows :  '*  That  the  Chaldeans  conquered  Egypt 
in  the  year  581  B.C.  is  irreconcilable  with  the  testi- 
mony of  Ezekiel,  from  which  it  is  evident  that  the 
conquest  had  not  yet  taken  place  in  the  year  570  B.  C.,- 
and  with  the  account  of  Josephus  himself,  that  Nebu- 
chadnezzar besieged  Tyre  for  thirteen  years — prob- 
ably from  585  to  572  B.  c. :  the  invasion  of  Egypt 
cannot  surely  be  regarded  as  an  episode  of  that 
siege  J  "  This  is  merely  the  cavil  of  one  who  is  de- 
termined to  create  difficulties  at  all  hazards :  it  has 
no  other  foundation  than  the  assumption,  without 
one  word  in  Josephus  to  justify  it,  that  all  the 
events  grouped  together  in  the  paragraph  above 
quoted  occurred  in  one  and  the  same  year. 

And  now,  after  all  the  ado  made  about  these  proph- 
ecies respecting  Egypt,  and  the    confident  assertion 


2o8  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

that  nothing  but  ''  dogmatical  reasons  "  can  lead  any 
to  continue  to  defend  them,  the  case  stands  thus: 
The  silence  of  Herodotus  respecting  a  conquest  of 
Egypt  by  Nebuchadnezzar  is  no  just  reason  for  ques- 
tioning the  reality  of  its  occurrence.*  The  facts  that 
he  does  state  coincide  perfectly  with  the  assumption 
of  such  a  conquest,  and  are  moreover  in  entire  har- 
mony with  the  statements  of  Josephus,  who  positively 
avers  it,  and  the  correctness  of  whose  narrative  there 
is  no  sufficient  reason  for  impugning;  while  it  is  both 
intrinsically  probable  and  has  the  explicit  warrant  of 
Berosus,  a  native  Babylonish  historian.  In  fact,  the 
entire  history  of  the  period  and  the  whole  life  of 
Nebuchadnezzar  are  unintelligible  without  the  inva- 
sion of  Egypt,  which  was  the  natural  sequence  of  the 
victory  at  Carchemish,  and  of  the  struggle  for  pre- 
dominance in  Western  Asia  between  the  great  em- 
pires of  the  east  and  south  (see  li.  Chron.  xxxv.  21 ). 
Nebuchadnezzar,  too,  had  steadily  followed  up  his 
victory  by  the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  by  over-running 
the  contiguous  lands,  Moab,  Ammon,  and  the  rest, 
and  by  the  reduction  of  Tyre,  which  finally  opened 
the  way  for  this  long-contemplated  campaign.  That 
this  was  the  well-understood  policy  of  the  Babylonish 
monarch  from  the  beginning  is  shadowed  forth  by 
constantly  repeated  predictions  to  this  effect  from 
Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  as  Dr.  Kuenen  must  confess ; 
for  even  upon  his  low  views  of  prophecy  they  reveal 
the. popular  expectation  and  the  convictions  of  shrewd 
thinkers  and  the  drift  of  events.  Vltringa  suggests, 
not  improbably,  that  it  was  the  current  expectation 


AxVD  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL.  2O9 

of  an  invasion  of  Egypt  by  Nebuchadnezzar  that  gave 
rise  to  the  oracle  reported  by  Herodotus  (ii.  58),  that 
Necho,  in  building  the  canal  to  the  Red  Sea,  was 
"  laboring  for  the  barbarian."  And  the  fact  that 
Nebuchadnezzar  was  occupied  during  the  later  years 
of  his  life  with  his  magnificent  buildings  and  adorning 
Babylon,  implies  the  success  of  his  invasion,  and  that 
he  had  reached  the  summit  of  his  ambition  and  ter- 
minated the  long  strife  between  the  empires. 

But  what,  it  may  still  be  said,  is  to  be  thought  of 
Ezekiel's  prediction  of  the  forty  years'  desolation  of 
Egypt?  These  forty  years  are  plainly  the  residue 
of  the  seventy  years'  domination  of  Babylon  foretold 
by  Jeremiah  (xxv.  11,  12),  beginning  with  the  battle 
of  Carchemish,  which  broke  the  power  of  Egypt  and 
established  the  empire  of  Babylon  in  the  west,  and 
ending  with  the  capture  of  Babylon  and  subver- 
sion of  the  Chaldean  empire  by  Cyrus.  A  trifle  more 
than  thirty  of  these  predestined  years  had  elapsed 
when  Nebuchadnezzar  ended  his  siege  of  Tyre,  and 
now,  the  last  obstacle  removed,  was  prepared  to  strike 
the  final  blow  which  he  had  meditated  from  the  out- 
set, by  pushing  his  conquests  into  the  very  heart  of 
Egypt.  Thus  began  that  period  of  desolating  w^ar 
and  humiliating  subjection  to  a  foreign  yoke  w^hich 
was  terminated  only  by  Babylon's  own  fall,  in  round 
numbers  forty  years,  historically  reckoned  perhaps 
thirty-six  or  thirty-seven  years ;  though,  if  absolute 
precision  to  the  very  letter  be  demanded  in  the  ful- 
filment, while  in  the  absence  of  full  historical. data 
of  the  period  it  cannot  be  rigorously  demonstrated, 

14 


210  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

there  will  be  little  difficulty  in  assuming  it.  The  be- 
ginning and  the  end  of  such  a  period  of  calamity 
cannot  be  sharply  defined.  Egypt  was  harassed  by 
internal  dissensions,  and  doubtless  by  incursions  from 
the  troops  of  Nebuchadnezzar  before  his  invasion  was 
made  in  force.  And  the  power  of  Babylon  in  the 
remoter  parts  of  the  empire  was  not  instantly  dissi- 
pated upon  the  capture  of  the  city. 

The  surprisingly  strong  language  of  the  Prophet 
(xxix.  10,  ii),  *'  I  will  make  the  land  of  Egypt  ut- 
terly waste  and  desolate :  ...  no  foot  of  man  shall 
pass  through  it,  nor  foot  of  beast  shall  pass  through 
it,  neither  shall  it  be  inhabited  forty  years,"  admits  of 
a  twofold  vindication,  i.  These  universal  and  sweep- 
ing expressions  are  necessarily  limited  by  the  nature 
of  the  case.  It  is  a  strong  description  of  the  desola- 
tion which  would  follow  in  the  track  of  war,  the  con- 
sternation, pillage,  massacre,  which  would  so  change 
the  face  of  the  peaceful  and  populous  empire  that  it 
might  be  said  to  convert  it  into  a  desert.  It  is  the 
natural  language  of  hyperbole,  which  every  one  un- 
derstands, and  in  which  it  would  be  contrary  to  sound 
interpretation  and  be  a  perversion  of  the  real  mean- 
ing of  the  writer  to  insist  on  the  exact  literality  of 
the  expressions ;  as  much  so  as  when  the  evangelist 
says  (John  xxi.  25)  that  if  all  the  acts  of  Christ  were 
to  be  written,  the  world  itself  could  not  contain  the 
books.  Compare  Luke  xix.  40.  It  might  as  well 
be  insisted  that  the  language  of  every  metaphor  is 
to  be  pressed  in  its  most  literal  sense.  This  is  not 
interpretation,  but  perversion. 


AXD  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL.  211 

2.  Again,  it  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  prophecy 
does  not  always  exhaust  itself  in  a  single  fulfilment. 
This  is  the  case  here.  The  Prophet  Ezekicl,  while 
speaking  more  immediately  and  directly  of  the  judg- 
ment to  be  inflicted  on  Egypt  by  Nebuchadnezzar, 
nevertheless  has  as  his  more  general  theme  God's 
whole  work  of  judgment  upon  Egypt,  by  which  its 
hitherto  colossal  power  and  greatness  were  to  be 
broken,  and  it  should  cease  to  be  the  object  of  idol- 
atrous trust  to  Israel  (xxix.  i6)  that  it  then  was 
and  had  long  been.  The  first  and  preliminary  stage 
in  this  process  of  degradation  and  humiliation  was  to 
be  effected  by  Nebuchadnezzar :  this  was  the  initial 
yet  decisive  blow  which  presaged  and  involved  all 
the  rest.  In  describing  it,  consequently,  the  Prophet 
does  not  view  it  as  an  isolated  act  and  apart  from  its 
connections,  but  places  it  in  combination  with  all 
that  properly  appertains  to  it  in  the  design  of  God, 
links  it  with  its  whole  train  of  predestined  sequences, 
and  virtually  gathers  into  one  picture  what  God,  in 
bringing  this  to  pass,  designed  to  effect.  The  pur- 
pose of  God  which  sent  Nebuchadnezzar  into  Egypt 
was  not  limited  to  that  one  act,  but  contemplated  the 
reduction  and  humiliation  of  Egypt.  This  invasion 
was  but  the  first  step  of  a  more  comprehensive  plan, 
the  initiative  and  pledge  of  more  to  follow,  an  integral 
part  of  an  indivisible  whole  as  viewed  in  the  divine 
mind  and  as  here  regarded  by  the  Prophet.  Nebu- 
chadnezzar's invasion  of  Egypt,  as  the  first  member 
of  a  closely  concatenated  series,  carried  with  it  in  the 
purpose  of  God  all  that  was  to  come  after,  all  that 


212  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

Egypt  was  thencefonvard  to  suffer  from  subsequent 
invasions  and  oppressions  by  Persians,  Macedonians, 
Romans,  Saracens,  Mamelukes,  and  Turks.  And  the 
strength  of  the  Prophet's  expressions  are  graduated 
accordingly.  While  primarily  spoken  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, they  have  a  residuary  meaning  that  covers  all 
that  has  since  been  developed  from  them.  In  like 
manner  our  LORD,  in  His  memorable  prophecy  (Matt, 
xxiv.),  in  which  He  blends  together  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  and  the  end  of  the  world  as  constituent 
parts  of  one  grand  drama  of  divine  judgment  on 
transgression,  adds,  ''  Verily  this  generation  shall  not 
pass  till  all  these  things  be  fulfilled."  The  first  sta- 
dium of  accomphshment,  the  foretaste  and  assurance 
of  the  whole,  was  then  to  be  completed  in  the  de- 
struction of  the  Jewish  capital,  though  there  is  a  resid- 
uary meaning  in  His  words  which  shall  not  be  fully 
exhausted  until  the  final  judgment. 

Dr.  Kuenen  does  not  disguise  the  contempt  with 
which  he  regards  this  mode  of  interpreting  prophecy, 
as  though  it  were  arbitrary  in  the  extreme.  We  shall 
not  at  this  point  of  the  discussion  enter  upon  its  de- 
fence and  confirmation.  If  prophecy  is,  as  it  claims 
to  be,  a  divine  product,  there  is  no  reason  why  it 
should  not  thus  take  its  shape  from  the  divine  pur- 
poses. Whether  it  does  so  in  actual  fact  we  shall  in- 
quire more  particularly  hereafter.  We  only  remark  at 
present  that  such  a  mode  of  interpretation,  if  feasible 
and  proper,  would  satisfactorily  explain  the  Prophet's 
language,  and  justify  us  in  peremptorily  and  in  the 
most  decided  terms  reversing  our  author's  confident 


AND  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL.  21  3 

conclusion  (p.  128),  "that  the  future  of  Egypt  was 
concealed  from  Ezekiel,  and  that  the  reality  did  not 
even  remotely  correspond  to  his  postulates." 

Isaiah's  prediction  (xx.  4),  ''that  the  King  of  As- 
syria shall  carry  the  inhabitants  of  Egypt  and  Ethiopia 
away  ignominiously  out  of  their  land,"  was  fulfilled  to 
the  letter,  as  is  shown  both  by  Nahum  (iii.  8-10),  and 
by  an  inscription  of  Assurbanipal,  — testimonies  which 
are  adduced  by  Dr.  Kuenen  himself  (p.  121),  and 
which  he  vainly  seeks  to  set  aside  by  the  quibble  that 
Isaiah  "  expects  "  this  to  be  done  by  Sargon,  whereas 
it  was  effected  by  his  great-grandson.  The  sufficient 
reply  to  which  is,  that  the  meaning  of  the  prophecy 
is  to  be  determined  not  by  what  Dr.  Kuenen  con- 
ceives to  be  the  ''most  obvious  supposition"  of  what 
Isaiah  "  expects,"  but  by  its  own  explicit  declarations. 
It  was  an  expedition  of  Sargon  which  gave  occasion 
to  the  prophecy ;  the  triumph  over  Egypt,  however, 
is  ascribed  not  to  Sargon,  but  to  "  the  King  of  As- 
syria." The  assault  made  by  Sargon  was  followed  up 
by  his  successors  until  the  words  of  the  Prophet  were 
amply  verified. 

It  is  no  prejudice  to  the  inspiration  of  Isaiah  or  of 
Micah  if  "  the  overthrow  of  the  Assyrian  empire  is 
not  predicted  "  by  them.  Such  a  prediction  could 
not  be  expected  from  Micah,  for  his  prophecy  is  lim- 
ited exclusively  to  the  fortunes  of  the  people  of  God. 
Isaiah,  on  the  other  hand,  does  foretell  Assyria's  down- 
fall, with  prominent  reference  indeed  to  Sennacherib's 
disastrous  defeat  (x.  24-34,  xvii.  12-14,  xxx.  31  fif., 
xxxi.  8,  9),  but  in  terms  which  may  easily  be  under- 


214  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

Stood  as  reaching  much  farther  and  implying  a  more 
complete  destruction.  But  at  any  rate  the  Prophet  is 
not  omniscient.  He  has  no  predictive  faculty  by 
which  he  can  survey  the  future  at  will.  He  knows 
barely  what  is  revealed  to  him ;  of  all  else  he  is  as 
ignorant  as  ordinary  men.  The  fact  that  Isaiah  de- 
picts in  the  blissful  future  "  a  highway  out  of  Egypt  to 
Assyria  "  (xix.  23),  and  that  Micah  (v.  5,  6)  describes 
the  coming  Redeemer  as  Isaiah's  protector  against 
Assyrian  invasion,  may  or  may  not  warrant  Dr. 
Kuenen's  inference  that  for  aught  they  knew  the  As- 
syrian empire  would  last  until  Messiah's  days.  But 
in  either  case  the  language  is  as  consistent  with  strict 
truth  as  in  any  of  those  numerous  instances  in  which 
the  Prophets  set  forth  the  future  under  figures  bor- 
rowed from  the  present  or  the  past.  How  can  the 
unknown  be  more  intelligibly  and  impressively  repre- 
sented than  by  emblems  taken  from  what  is  known 
and  familiar?  Thus  when  Isaiah  would  express  the 
thought  that  the  Exiles  of  Israel  shall  be  brought  back 
to  their  own  land  under  immediate  and  evident  divine 
guidance  and  protection,  he  represents  their  return 
from  the  land  of  their  oppressors  as  a  fresh  exodus 
out  of  Egypt,  in  which  the  miracle  of  the  Red  Sea 
shall  be  repeated  (xi.  15),  and  water  again  brought 
for  them  from  the  rock  (xlviii.  21).  The  particular 
forms  in  which  this  almighty  intervention  shall  be 
exerted  on  their  behalf  are  of  small  account  compared 
with  the  essential  fact  itself.  Thus,  too,  when  Eze- 
kiel  would  make  Israel  sensible  that  they  were  on  a 
par  with  the  worst  offenders,  and  that  their  future 


AND  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL.  215 

restoration  was  wholly  of  God's  unmerited  mercy,  he 
tells  them  that  Sodom  and  her  daughters  shall  like- 
wise be  restored  to  their  former  estate  as  well  as  they, 
and  be  associated  with  them  in  the  closest  intimacy 
and  relationship  (xvi.  53,  55,  61)  ;  not,  of  course,  that 
there  was  to  be  a  literal  resurrection  of  the  Cities  of 
the  Plain,  destroyed  by  fire  from  Heaven,  but  that  the 
same  grace  which  rescues  Israel  will  reach  to  Sodom's 
spiritual  counterpart,  and  bring  into  restored  com- 
munion with  God,  and  into  fellowship  with  his  people, 
the  most  degraded  heathen,  the  very  dregs  of  the 
human  race.      (Compare  Isai.  i.  10;   Rev.  xi.  8.) 

It  may  have  been  of  little  consequence  to  Isaiah  or 
to  Micah,  or  to  their  contemporaries,  to  have  the 
political  changes  disclosed  to  them  by  which  Assyria 
was  to  be  superseded  on  the  map  of  the  world  or  erased 
from  the  roll  of  nations ;  but  it  was  of  vast  moment 
to  them  to  know  that,  whether  the  ancient  Assyria 
should  survive  or  whatever  new  Assyria  might  arise  to 
take  its  place,  the  strife  between  the  great  empires  of 
the  world  should  hereafter  give  way  to  peaceful  and 
amicable  intercourse,  and  instead  of  their  present 
animosity  toward  the  people  of  God,  they  should  be 
heartily  united  with  Israel  in  the  service  of  Jehovah. 
And  should  any  future  Assyria  venture  to  molest 
Israel  or  disturb  his  peace,  his  Messiah  would  effec- 
tually protect  him  and  avenge  his  cause. 

Of  Nahum's  and  Zephaniah's  predictions  of  the 
total  destruction  of  Nineveh,  Dr.  Kuenen  well  says, 
*'  History  has  set  its  seal  on  these  anticipations."  He 
claims,  however,  that  there  was  '*  one  respect  in  which 


2l6  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

their  predictions  were  not  confirmed  by  the  issue. 
Nineveh  was  depopulated  and  became  a  desolation  in 
a  comparatively  brief  space,  but  still  not  all  at  once  " 
(p.  131).  But  how  this  militates  against  the  truth  of 
the  prediction  does  not  appear ;  much  less  what  there 
is  to  justify  Dr.  Kuenen  in  speaking  as  he  does  (p.  133) 
of  "the  opposition  between  the  contents  of  the  proph- 
ecy and  the  historical  reality."  A  summary  statement 
of  an  event  occupying  long  periods  of  time  and  pass- 
ing through  various  phases,  which  seizes  on  its  main 
features  or  depicts  it  in  its  consummation,  may  be 
just  as  true  and  for  some  important  purposes  vastly 
more  efTectlve  than  an  account  which  enters  into  every 
minute  detail.  Nahum  vividly  describes  the  assault 
upon  Nineveh,  its  capture  and  its  desolation.  That 
this  would  all  be  finished  at  a  stroke  he  does  not  say. 
The  fact  is  revealed  to  him ;  the  length  of  time  that 
it  would  occupy,  and  the  successive  steps  through 
which  it  would  attain  to  full  accomplishment,  are  not 
revealed.  But  the  fulfilment  is  none  the  less  accurate 
on  that  account,  now  that  every  item  in  the  prediction 
has  been  verified ;  in  fact,  the  longer  the  process  the 
more  far-seeing  is  he  who  can  infallibly  forecast  its 
termination,  and  the  clearer  the  evidence  that  it  is  no 
mere  deduction  of  human  sagacity. 

To  this  view  of  the  case  Dr.  Kuenen  interposes  two 
objections:  i.  *' It  is  lud^xzx-dX piinisJiments  \n\{\z\\  the 
Prophets  announce.  But  the  destiny  of  the  heathen 
nations  loses  that  character  when  slow  decay  takes 
the  place  of  sudden  destruction."  Unless  Dr.  Kuenen 
is  disposed  to  dispute  the  moral  government  of  God 


AND  PROPHECY  IX  ISRAEL. 


217 


altogether,  and  to  deny  the  reahty  of  divine  retribu- 
tions in  this  world,  he  must  mean,  not  that  punish- 
ment ceases  to  be  such  because  tardily  inflicted  or 
slowly  evolved,  but  that  men  are  in  this  case  in  dan- 
ger of  not  recognizing  it  as  such,  and  of  being  diverted 
from  considering  it  in  its  real  nature  as  a  judicial  in- 
fliction, to  what  is  merely  subordinate  and  incidental. 
And  this  brings  to  light  a  prominent  reason  for  that 
frequent  peculiarity  of  prophetic  representation  which 
we  are  now  considering  and  at  which  Dr.  Kuenen 
takes  such  offence.     The  Prophet  not  only  discloses 
but  interprets  the  future.     It  is  the  finger  of  God  in 
human  events  which  he  is  particularly  concerned  to 
mark.     Prophecy  is  not  the"  random  disclosure  of  the 
future  for  the   sake  of  gratifying  curiosity,  exciting 
wonder,    or   even    confirming   a   divine    commission. 
This  last  is  an  incidental  end  of  great  value,  but  the 
Prophet  is  mainly  and  properly  the  inspired  religious 
teacher  and  guide  of  the  people.     The  purposes  of 
God  in  the  future,  so  far  as  these  are  revealed  to  him, 
supply  lessons  of  warning  and  instruction.     He  is  con- 
cerned with  the  future  only  as  it  manifests  the   grace 
or  the  justice  of  God;  with  coming  calamities  only  as 
judicial  inflictions,  with  coming  good  only  as  a  fruit  of 
the  divine  favor.     The  minutiae  of  historical  detail,  if 
disclosed  to  him,  would  be  nothing  to  his  purpose  ;  the 
intervals  of  time,  the  fluctuations  and  varying  phases 
of  events,  the  second  causes  concerned  in  their  produc- 
tion, are  all  unessential  to  the  end  for  which  prophecy 
is  communicated,  viz.,  that  of  impressing  moral  and 
spiritual  lessons  on  the  minds  of  the  people.     In  fact, 


2l8  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

they  are  not  only  of  inferior  consequence,  but  it  would 
be  disturbing  and  distracting  to  introduce  them.  The 
lesson  of  God's  judgment  on  a  guilty  nation  is  made 
more  impressive  by  presenting  it  in  its  unity,  by  gath- 
ering it  all  up  into  one  summary,  comprehensive 
view,  which  shall  truthfully  represent  and  faithfully 
depict  it  in  the  aggregate  or  in  certain  marked  and 
salient  features,  and  direct  attention  to  the  moral  se- 
quences and  the  design  of  God  in  the  whole  from  first 
to  last.  And,  if  this  is  to  be  done,  it  is  of  course  nec- 
essary to  pass  over  slightly  or  altogether  leave  out  of 
sight  much  that  is  purely  accessory  and  contingent, 
and  which  would  only  serve  to  turn  away  the  thoughts 
from  the  main  point  to  be  inculcated. 

And  this  is  important,  not  only  for  the  immediate 
hearers  of  the  Prophet,  but  for  those  as  well  who  live 
when  the  events  predicted  come  to  pass,  to  give  them 
the  true  key  for  the  understanding  of  that  which  they 
behold.  Dr.  Kuenen  says,  "  surely  none  of  those 
who  witnessed  the  decay  of  heathen  nations  could 
regard  it,  as  the  Prophet  wished  it  to  be  regarded,  as 
the  execution  of  a  sentence  pronounced  by  Jahveh." 
But,  instructed  by  the  Prophet  beforehand,  men  can 
do  this :  they  can  then  trace  in  the  slow  evolutions 
of  history  what  he  has  foreshown  in  his  condensed 
picture  and  set  in  its  true  divine  relations.  This  "de- 
viation in  details,"  therefore,  ''between  the  prediction 
and  the  historical  fact,"  at  which  Dr.  Kuenen  cavils, 
results  from  the  divine  adaptation  of  prophecy  to  its 
proper  end  in  the  instruction  and  training  of  the 
people  of  God. 


'iND  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL. 


219 


Dr.  Kuciicn's  second  objection,  to  the  view  that  a 
neglect  of  the  relations  of  time  is  consistent  with  the 
truth  of  prophecy,  is  that  prophecy  not  infrequently 
does   take   cognizance    of   these    relations.      "  Fixed 
dates  are  not  wanting  in  the  prophecies.     The  Proph- 
ets thus  show  that  they  perceive  very  well  that  dates 
are  anything  but  indifferent.    In  a  number  of  prophe- 
cies the  cardinal   thought   itself  stands  or  falls  with 
the  succession  of  events   therein   announced."     This 
is  certainly  so.    And  we  quite  agree  with  Dr.  Kuenen's 
criticism  upon  those  who  speak  of  the  '*  perspective  " 
character  of  prophecy  as  if  it  were  one  of  its  invaria- 
ble features,  or  of  inner  intuition  as  the  fixed  form  of 
prophetical  revelation,  that  they  attribute  to  all  proph- 
ecies what  is  applicable  only  to  a  portion  of  them. 
The  phenomena  of  vision  may  be  serviceable  in  illus- 
trating that  frequent  pecuHarity  of  prophetic  repre- 
sentation, to  which  we  have  before  adverted ;   but  to 
resolve  prophecy  into  vision  and  to  determine  its  laws 
accordingly,  is  to  enter  the  region  of  doubtful  specu- 
lation.    The  Spirit  of  the  LoRD  is  limited  to  no  one 
method  in  making  His  disclosures.     The  ends  of  His 
revelation  are  better  answered  sometimes,  as  we  have 
seen,  by  excluding  all  reference  to  the  lapse  of  time ; 
at  others  definite  dates  are  given,  and  the  chronologi- 
cal order  of  events  is  distinctly  indicated.     And  when 
the  latter  is  the  case,  the  fulfilment  must  of  course 
conform  to  the  statements  of  the  prophecy  in  these 
particulars. 

The   special   application  which    Dr.   Kuencn   pro- 
poses of  this  principle  is  the  following :   "  Is  the  judg- 


2  20  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

ment  upon  one  or  other  heathen  nation  promised  to 
the  people  of  Israel,  and  represented  as  the  repara- 
tion of  the  wrongs  which  they  had  endured,  then  the 
possibility  of  such  a  prophecy  being  realized  ceases 
from  the  moment  that  Israel  loses  its  national  exist- 
ence, and  thus  can  no  longer  reap  the  fruits  of  the 
destruction  of  its  enemies"  (p.  136).  The  fallacy  of 
this  is  obvious.  Israel  sustained  a  twofold  character : 
it  was  both  a  political  and  a  religious  body ;  it  was 
a  nation,  with  its  affinities  of  race  and  its  hereditary 
institutions ;  and  it  was  the  people  of  God,  in  cove- 
nant with  Him,  and  embracing  those  who  feared  His 
name  and  obeyed  His  will.  These  two  aspects,  though 
historically  blended  in  Israel,  were  not  inseparable ; 
and  even  while  they  were  united  they  might  be  and 
they  were  mentally  distinguished.  Now,  nothing  can 
be  plainer  than  that  in  their  promises  of  future  good 
the  Prophets  contemplate  Israel,  not  as  a  nation,  but 
as  the  people  of  God.  It  is  their  constant  theme  that 
the  wicked  must  be  purged  out  of  Israel  by  divine 
judgments  (Isai.  i.  24  ff.)  before  the  promised  bles- 
sings can  come,  and  that  the  holy  seed  alone  shall  be 
spared  (Isai.  vi.  13)  ;  though  they  were  as  numerous 
as  the  sand  of  the  sea,  only  a  remnant  should  return 
to  the  Lord  and  stay  themselves  on  him  (Isai.  x. 
20-22).  It  shall  be  well  with  the  righteous;  it  shall 
be  ill  with  the  wicked  (Isai.  iii.  10,  11).  "All  the  sin- 
ners of  my  people  shall  die  by  the  sword  "  (Amos  ix. 
10).  "There  is  no  peace,  saith  the  LORD,  unto  the 
wicked"  (Isai.  xlviii.  22).  Their  possession  of  the 
Temple  that  was  called  by  the  LORD'S  name,  and  of 


AND  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL.  22  1 

the  land  which  he  had  given  them  (Jer.  vii.  14),  and 
the  promises  made  to  their  fathers  (xi.  3  ff.),  would 
not  save  them  if  disobedient  and  unfaithful.  It  was 
shown  to  Jeremiah  (xxiv.)  under  the  emblem  of  the 
good  figs  and  the  bad  figs,  and  to  Ezekiel  in  the 
vision  of  his  eleventh  chapter,  that  the  wicked,  how- 
ever they  might  be  outwardly  connected  with  Israel, 
were  no  real  part  of  it  (Hos.  i.  9),  and  they  had  no 
proper  share  in  the  blessings  that  were  in  reserve. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  sons  of  the  stranger  that 
join  themselves  to  the  LORD  shall  share  the  privileges 
of  His  people  (Isai.  Ivi.  3-8).  Egypt  and  Assyria, 
when  they  too  serve  the  LORD,  shall  occupy  the 
same  relation  to  Him  as  Israel  (Isai.  xix.  23-25). 
The  merchandise  of  Tyre  (Isai.  xxiii.  18)  shall,  like 
everything  in  Jerusalem  (Zech.  xiv.  21),  be  holiness 
to  the  Lord.  Of  all  the  nations  that  have  provoked 
divine  judgments,  the  Lord  declares  (Jer.  xii.  16), 
"  If  they  will  diligently  learn  the  ways  of  My  people, 
to  swear  by  My  name,  the  LORD  liveth,  then  shall 
they  be  built  in  the  midst  of  My  people."  "  Many 
nations  shall  be  joined  to  the  LORD  in  that  day,  and 
shall  be  My  people  "  (Zech.  ii,  11).  Egypt,  Babylon, 
Philistia,  Tyre,  and  Ethiopia  are  to  be  accounted  as 
native-born  in  Zion  (Ps.  Ixxxvii.  4). 

On  the  basis  of  such  statements,  which  abound 
upon  every  page  of  the  prophetic  writings,  we  are 
amply  justified  in  affirming  that  the  national  exist- 
ence of  Israel  was,  to  the  Prophets,  quite  a  distinct 
thing  from  the  existence  of  Israel  as  the  people  of 
God.     They  clearly  contemplated  the  possibility  that 


222  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

the  former  might  be  overturned ;  they  over  and  over 
again  positively  predict  that  it  shall  be ;  but  the  lat- 
ter abides  perpetual,  unaffected  by  the  ruins  of  the 
former.  The  national  existence  of  Israel  is  no  more. 
But  the  people  of  Jehovah,  who  worship  and  fear 
Him,  who  reverently  receive  and  obey  His  Word 
through  Moses  and  the  Prophets,  are  more  numer- 
ous than  ever.  They  belong  to  every  nation.  They 
are  found  in  every  land.  They  are  sprung  from  every 
race  and  family  of  mankind.  These  are  the  Israel  of 
God  in  the  true  sense  of  the  Prophets,  who  regard  not 
natural  lineage,  but  spiritual  kinship. 

So  far,  then,  from  the  termination  of  Israel's  "  na- 
tional existence  "  having  set  a  limit  to  the  fulfilment 
of  the  prophecies  under  consideration,  the  enlarge- 
ment of  the  faithful  remnant  of  Israel  by  the  acces- 
sion of  believing  Gentiles  is  supplying  the  required 
conditions  and  preparing  the  way  for  a  fulfilment  in 
a  fuller  and  more  adequate  sense  than  ever.  The  ful- 
filment began  in  each  case  with  the  judgment  inflicted 
upon  these  nations  severally  by  Assyria  or  by  Baby- 
lon before  Israel's  political  existence  was  extinguished, 
and  when  they  could  behold  the  avenging  of  their 
cause  by  the  providence  of  God,  and  to  some  extent 
reap  the  benefits  of  it  before  the  captivity  or  after  the 
return.  But  "  the  meek  shall  inherit  the  earth;  "  and 
the  time  is  yet  coming  when  these  desolated  seats  of 
the  ancient  foes  of  God's  people  shall  be  occupied  by 
those  who  truly  fear  His  name. 

These  are  the  two  talismans  on  whose  magical  vir- 
tue  Dr.  Kuenen  relies   to  set   aside  what  have  been 


AND  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL. 


223 


hitherto  ranked  among  the  most  signal  fulfihncnts  of 
prophecy;  and  thus  easily  and  effectually  are  they  dis- 
enchanted. They  cannot  abide  the  test  of  a  candid 
examination.  It  is  not  essential  to  the  accomplish- 
ment of  a  prediction  that  it  should  take  place  speed- 
ily or  all  at  once,  when  the  prediction  itself  makes  no 
such  requirement.  And  the  loss  of  Israel's  national 
existence  does  not  put  an  end  to  the  possibility  of 
fulfilling  the  judgments  predicted  on  their  foes.  We 
accept  without  hesitation  the  view  which  he  imputes 
to  believers  in  prophecy  (p.  135),  that  it  is  *'  fulfilled 
exactly  and  literally,  or  in  another  form  and  at  an- 
other period,  but  still  always  fulfilled ;''  though  we 
repel  the  latent  sarcasm  in  his  form  of  putting  it,  as 
though  their  only  concern  were  to  bring  out  a  fulfil- 
ment by  fair  means  or  by  foul.  The  truth  is  that  an 
honest  interpretation  of  prophecy,  and  comparison 
with  the  facts  of  history,  uniformly  carries  with  it  the 
evidence  of  a  fulfilment;  and  this  is  only  to  be  es- 
caped by  some  such  method  as  that  of  Dr.  Kuenen, 
imposing  arbitrary  conditions  not  authorized  by  the 
prediction,  and  refusing  to  admit  a  fulfilment,  how- 
ever obvious,  unless  these  are  complied  with. 

To  the  predictions  of  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah  respect- 
ing Babylon,  with  the  exception  of  some  trivialities, 
the  bare  statement  of  which  would  be  a  sufficient  ref- 
utation, he  has  nothing  to  object  but  ''  the  lingering 
process  of  decay  through  which  the  mighty  city 
passed  "  to  its  desolation  so  accurately  foretold  ages 
before. 

Dr.  Kuenen  confesses  that  all  which  the  Book  of 


224  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

Daniel  contains  respecting  "  Alexander  the  Great  and 
his  successors,"  and  especially  "  the  fortunes  of  Anti- 
ochus  Epiphanes,  and  that  prince's  measures  against 
the  Israelitish  religion,"  is  strictly  accurate.  But  then 
he  alleges  that  the  account  of  the  latest  years  of  An- 
tiochus  and  all  beyond  that  time  is  contradicted  by 
the  event;  and  its  account  of  matters  "before  Alex- 
ander the  Great  is  not  only  incomplete,  but  defective, 
and  partly  inaccurate."  Hence  he  infers  that  this 
book  cannot  have  been  the  genuine  production  of  the 
Prophet  Daniel,  but  must  belong  to  a  much  later 
date.  "  The  writer's  ignorance  of  these  facts  is  at 
once  explained  if  we  assume  that  he  wrote  in  the  age 
of  Epiphanes,  and  that  in  the  year  165  B.  c.  But 
how  can  that  ignorance  be  made  to  agree  with  the 
supposition  that  he  was  enlightened  by  supernatural 
revelation  with  regard  to  all  the  preceding  matters? 
Did  that  revelation  begin  to  fail  him  at  a  certain 
point  ?  "  But  how  if  no  such  ignorance  exists  except 
in  Dr.  Kuenen's  imagination,  or  must  we  even  say  it, 
his  misrepresentation?  How,  still  further,  if  the  book 
contains  clear  and  unambiguous  prophecies,  which 
have  been  undeniably  fulfilled,  reaching  far  beyond 
the  date  when  he  himself  alleges  it  to  have  been 
written?  His  argument  against  its  genuineness  and 
its  inspiration  then  falls  of  itself;  and  the  admission 
which  he  has  made  of  its  correctness  in  relation  to 
events  long  after  Daniel's  time  becomes  a  confession 
of  a  long  series  of  predictions  accurately  accom- 
plished. 

This  it  is  not  difficult  to  show.     The  charge  (p.  144, 


AND  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL.  225 

note  7),  that,  whereas  Antiochus  died  In  Persia,  it  is 
predicted  (Dan.  xi.  40-45)  that  he  should  find  his  end 
in  Palestine,  is  refuted  by  simply  reading  (ver.  45), 
"  And  he  shall  come  to  his  end,  and  none  shall  help 
him ;  "  this  was  to  be  after  he  had  planted  "  the  taber- 
nacle of  his  palace  in  the  glorious  holy  mountain," 
but  that  it  should  be  immediately  after  or  in  the  same 
locality  is  neither  said  nor  implied.  An  error  is  pre- 
tended in  the  2300  days  (viii.  14),  and  in  the  three 
and  a  half  years  (xii.  7),  the  1290  and  the  1335  days 
(vers.  II,  12)  ;  but  their  literal  exactness  is  defended 
not  only  by  believing  interpreters  as  Havernick,  but 
even  by  others  who,  like  Bertholdt  and  Lengerke, 
attach  no  more  credit  to  prophecy  than  Dr.  Kuenen 
himself.  The  statement  that  the  writer  of  Daniel 
"  knows  only  of  four  Persian  kings  "  has  no  other 
foundation  than  the  circumstance  that  he  has  occasion 
to  speak  of  Xerxes  (xi.  2)  as  the  fourth  after  Cyrus 
(x.   I). 

The  assertion  that  "  he  is  in  error  even  with  regard 
to  the  Babylonian  kings,  of  whom  the  last  is,  accord- 
ing to  him,  Belshazzar,  the  son  and,  as  it  appears,  the 
successor  of  Nebuchadnezzar,"  is  a  very  extraordinary 
one  in  the  present  state  of  our  knowledge  on  this  sub- 
ject. Until  a  comparatively  recent  time  Belshazzar 
was  a  puzzle,  and  the  charge  that  the  author  of  the 
Book  of  Daniel  had  blundered  here  was  freely  made. 
No  other  writer  of  antiquity  makes  mention  of  such  a 
prince.  All  who  speak  of  the  last  king  of  Babylon 
call  him  Nabonned,  or  by  some  name  so  nearly  ap- 
proaching this   in    form   as    to    be    plainly   identical. 

IS 


2  26  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

According  to  Berosus,  he  was  not  of  royal  descent, 
but  reached  the  throne  by  a  successful  conspiracy; 
and,  instead  of  being  put  to  death  when  Babylon  was 
taken  (Dan.  v.  30),  he  was  at  that  time  at  Borsippa, 
which  he  surrendered  without  a  siege,  and  was  in  con- 
sequence generously  treated  by  Cyrus,  who  made  him 
Governor  of  Caramania,  where  he  died.  Xenophon, 
indeed,  says  that  the  king,  whose  name  he  does  not 
give,  but  whom  he  styles  "  impious,"  was  slain  in  the 
capture  of  Babylon.  But  it  was  the  fashion  to  discredit 
Xenophon  and  Daniel,  and  to  affirm  that  the  native 
historian  Berosus  must  be  right.  Thus  the  case  stood 
until  a  few  years  since,  when  the  whole  matter  was 
cleared  up  and  Daniel  thoroughly  vindicated  by  the 
discovery  of  a  cylinder  ^  of  Nabonned,  King  of  Baby- 
lon, in  which  he  makes  repeated  mention  of  his  eldest 
son  Belshazzar  (Bel-sarussur).  No  doubt  Nabonned 
had  associated  his  son  Belshazzar  with  himself  in  the 
sovereignty.  When  Nabonned  was  defeated  by  Cyrus 
and  obliged  to  shut  himself  up  in  Borsippa,  Bel- 
shazzar remained  in  Babylon  and  perished  in  the  over- 
throw of  the  city.  If  we  suppose  Nabonned  to  have 
been  married  to  a  daughter  of  Nebuchadnezzar,^  who 
would  then  be  the  queen  of  Dan.  v.  10,  Nebuchad- 
nezzar could  with  as   much  propriety  be  called   the 

1  Menant,  "  Babylone  et  la  Chaldee,"  pp.  254  ff. 

2  This  supposition  is  commended  not  only  by  its  perfectly  reconcil- 
ing all  the  statements  in  the  case,  and  by  the  analogy  of  Neriglissar 
(Nergal-sharezer),  the  successful  conspirator  against  his  brother-in-law 
Evil-Merodach,  but  likewise  by  the  fact,  attested  by  the  Behistun  in- 
scription, that  Nabonned  had  a  son  Nebuchadnezzar,  who  was  twice 
personated  by  impostors  in  the  reign  of  Darius  Hystaspes. 


AA'D   PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL.  227 

father  of  Belshazzar  (Dan.  v.  2  ff.)  as  David  is  called 
the  father  of  King  Josiah  (ll.  Chron.  xxxiv.  2,  3).  If 
now,  as  Dr.  Kuenen  would  have  us  believe,  the  Book 
of  Daniel  is  the  production,  not  of  a  contemporary  and 
an  eye-witness,  but  of  some  nameless  Jew  of  Palestine 
nearly  four  centuries  after  the  fall  of  Babylon,  how 
comes  it  to  pass  that  it  alone  of  all  ancient  writings 
has  preserved  the  name  of  Belshazzar  and  the  memory 
of  his  existence? 

Another  equally  unfortunate  thrust  at  the  credibility 
of  Daniel  is  the  charge  that  he  "  thrusts  in  the  Median 
monarchy  between  the  Babylonian  and  the  Persian." 
His  mention  of  the  brief  rule  of  Darius  the  Mede, 
which  is  also  certified  by  Xenophon,  and  has  besides 
such  intrinsic  probability  under  the  circumstances,  is 
another  instance  of  minute  accuracy  where  other  his- 
torians of  the  period  have  passed  over  in  silence  a 
reign  attended  by  no  lasting  consequences  and  eclipsed 
by  the  greater  glory  of  that  of  Cyrus.  The  idea  of  a 
"  Median  monarchy,"  however,  following  the  Baby- 
lonian, and  distinct  from  the  Persian,  is  not  sanctioned 
by  Daniel,  but  foisted  upon  him  by  Dr.  Kuenen  for  a 
purpose  of  his  own.  In  order  to  bring,  the  contents 
of  the  dream  of  Nebuchadnezzar  (Dan.  ii.)  and  of  the 
vision  of  the  four  beasts  (vii.)  into  the  period  preced- 
ing the  time  which  he  has  fixed  for  the  composition  of 
the  book,  he  maintains  (p.  141)  that  **  the  four  king- 
doms are  the  Babylonian,  the  Median,  the  Persian, 
and  the  Grecian  (that  of  Alexander  the  Great  and  his 
successors)."  But  that  the  Median  and  the  Persian 
are  not  two,  but  one  and  the  same  kingdom,  appears 


2  28  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

from  the  fact  that  the  Medes  and  Persians  are  ahvays 
united,  both  in  this  book  and  elsewhere.  It  was  an- 
nounced to  Belshazzar  (v.  28),  *' Thy  kingdom  is 
divided,  and  given  to  the  Medes  and  Persians."  Under 
Darius  the  Mede  the  law  is  that  of  the  Medes  and  Per- 
sians (vi.  8,  12,  15).  The  ram  with  the  two  horns  in 
the  vision  of  ch.  viii.  represents  (ver.  20)  the  kings  of 
Media  and  Persia.  So  under  Ahasuerus  (Xerxes)  it 
is  Persia  and  Media  (Esth.  i.  3,  14,  18),  the  Persians 
and  the  Medes  (i.  19).  And  in  the  Behistun  inscrip- 
tion of  Darius  Hystaspes  we  find  repeatedly  the  same 
combination,  Persia  and  Media,  the  Persian  and  Me- 
dian army.  The  same  thing  appears  from  the  nature 
of  the  case.  The  Median  was  not  overturned  by  the 
Persian  kingdom,  as  the  Babylonian  by  the  Persian 
and  the  Persian  by  the  Grecian ;  but  there  was  simply 
a  change  in  the  reigning  monarch  by  peaceful  legiti- 
mate succession.  The  four  heads  of  the  third  beast 
(vii.  6)  indicate  the  fourfold  division  of  the  third  mon- 
archy, which  was  true  of  the  Grecian  kingdom  (see 
viii.  8,  22),  but  inapplicable  to  the  Persian. 

If,  now,  the  Medo-Persian  is  but  one  kingdom,  the 
second,  and-  the  Grecian  the  third,  then  the  fourth 
kingdom  must  be  the  Roman, — which  best  suits  the 
description,  and  which  is  the  interpretation  that  has 
been  put  upon  it  from  the  beginning.  This  delinea- 
tion of  the  character  and  conquests  of  the  Roman 
empire,  the  erection  of  Messiah's  kingdom  while  it 
still  lasted,  its  subsequent  weakness  and  subdivision, 
and  the  arising  of  a  great  persecuting  power  out  of  it, 
are  predictions  which  were  manifestly  fulfilled  long 


AND  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL.  229 

after  the  time  of  Antlochus  Epiphancs,  and  which 
require  the  assumption  of  a  divine  supernatural  fore- 
sight, even  though  the  book  were  written  at  as  late  a 
period  as  that  to  which  Dr.  Kuenen  himself  assigns  it, 
—  not  to  speak  of  the  further  prophecy  of  the  seventy 
weeks  (ix,  24-27),  fulfilled  in  the  ministry  and  vicarious 
death  of  Jesus  Christ,  at  the  predicted  time,  and  the 
subsequent  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Can  such  evi- 
dence of  inspiration  coexist  with  imposture?  Can 
predictions  such  as  these,  the  reality  of  which  even 
the  most  advanced  critical  hypothesis  fails  to  set  aside, 
be  joined  in  the  same  production  with  pretended  pre- 
dictions which  are  not  really  such,  which  are  not  gen- 
uine utterances  of  the  Prophet  from  whom  they  claim 
to  be,  but  falsely  issued  in  his  name  after  the  events 
had  come  to  pass?  This  prediction,  that  the  Grecian 
empire  would  be  succeeded  by  the  Roman,  further 
shows  that  Daniel  did  not  expect  the  resurrection  and 
final  judgment  to  follow  immediately  after  the  deliv- 
erance from  the  persecutions  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes, 
and  thus  corrects  the  false  inferences  drawn  from  the 
transition  in  xii.  i,  2.  Moreover,  if  the  Book  of  Dan- 
iel were  a  spurious  production,  first  written  and  pub- 
lished 165  B.C.,  and  contained  the  extravagant  and 
fanatical  expectations  imputed  to  it  by  Dr.  Kuenen 
respecting  the  miraculous  death  of  Antiochus  in  Pales- 
tine, to  be  followed  at  once  by  the  coming  of  the 
Messiah  and  the  resurrection  —  expectations  which 
were  falsified  by  the  event  within  two  years  —  must  it 
not  have  been  discredited  at  once?  How  could  it 
ever  have  gained  credit  as  the  genuine  work  of  a  true 


230  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

Prophet  of  God,  who  Hved  nearly  four  centuries 
before?  and  especially  how  could  it  have  attained 
such  speedy  and  acknowledged  influence  that  the 
Book  of  Maccabees,  in  recording  the  history  of  these 
times,  adopts  its  very  language  and  borrows  its  forms 
of  expression? 

In  regard  to  the  judgments  predicted  upon  Israel, 
Dr.  Kuenen  is  at  great  pains  to  represent  the  Prophets 
as  at  variance  with  one  another  and  with  the  facts  of 
the  case ;  and  the  methods  which  he  employs  are  as 
extraordinary  as  the  results  at  which  he  arrives.  He 
alleges  that  neither  Hosea  nor  Amos  ''  expect  the 
destruction  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah,"  though  they 
clearly  intimate  that  it  shall  be  destroyed  (Hos.  i.  11, 
viii.  14;  Amos  ii.  5,  ix.  11)  ;  and  this  is  besides  a  sub- 
ject foreign  to  their  theme,  in  which  silence  cannot 
with  any  propriety  be  construed  as  a  denial.  Amos 
predicts  the  captivity  of  the  ten  tribes,  but  Dr.  Kuenen 
cavils  because  he  does  not  explicitly  mention  the 
Assyrians,  nor  state  how  long  it  would  be  before  the 
Exile,  and  because  he  exhorts  the  people  to  repent- 
ance ;  from  which  the  inference  is  drawn  that  he  could 
not  have  foreseen  that  they  would  remain  obdur- 
ate, and  that  the  judgments  which  he  threatens 
would  really  be  inflicted.  He  endeavors  to  show  that 
Hosea  is  vacillating  and  self-contradictory,  and  finally 
confesses  that  he  "  does  not  contradict  himself, 
if  we  regard  his  intention  more  than  the  words  he 
employs." 

Micah  iii.  12  jDredicts  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
which  was  accomplished  by  the  Chaldeans.     Isaiah 


AND  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL. 


231 


predicts  that  It  shall  be  spared  in  the  invasion  of  Sen- 
nacherib.^    And  this  is  gravely  represented  as  a  con- 

1  Of  course  Dr.  Kuenen  makes  the  most  that  he  can  out  of  the 
chronological  difficulty  which  Assyrian  scholars  pretty  unanimously 
agree  to  find  in  Isai.  x.xxvi.  i,  and  the  parallel  passage,  ii.  Kings  xviii. 
13.  While  the  testimony  of  the  monuments  confirms  the  statements 
of  these  chapters  in  the  most  remarkable  manner,  and  even  in  minute 
particulars,  it  would  appear  that  Sargon  was  still  King  of  Assyria  in 
Hezekiah's  fourteenth  year,  and  that  the  invasion  of  Sennacherib  very 
probably  did  not  take  place  till  thirteen  years  later.  "  It  is  impossible," 
he  says  (p.  288),  "to  imagine  that  we  have  here  an  error  of  a  copy- 
ist; but  how  then  can  a  blunder  so  remarkable  have  originated  with 
regard  to  such  an  important  fact  ?  "  His  solution  is  that  an  expedition 
of  Sargon  has  been  confounded  with  that  of  Sennacherib;  and  this 
mingling  of  two  separate  events,  which  awakens  a  suspicion  of  other 
inaccuracies,  betrays  a  writer  long  posterior  to  the  occurrences  them- 
selves. In  his  opinion  this  narrative  was  not  written  by  Isaiah  him- 
self, but  has  been  adopted  into  the  volume  of  his  prophecies  from  the 
books  of  Kings.  Consequently,  '''' in  its  present  form, ^'' \\.  "is  about  a 
hundred  and  fifty  years  later  than  the  events  which  it  records " 
(p.  287). 

Refreshing  as  it  is  to  find  Dr.  Kuenen  thus  playing  the  unaccustomed 
rdle  of  an  assertor  of  the  accuracy  of  the  received  text,  we  cannot  help 
thinking  that,  if  the  conclusions  of  Assyriologists  be  correct  in  this 
instance,  the  readiest  mode  of  reconciliation  is  to  assume  an  error  in 
the  number,  and  to  suppose  that  "fourteenth"  has  been  wrongly  sub- 
stituted for  "  twenty-seventh."  It  would  not  be  difficult  to  account  for 
such  a  mistaken  attempt  at  correction  on  the  part  of  transcribers. 
Hezekiah's  sickness  (Isai.  xxxviii.  5;  compare  ii.  Kings  xviii.  2) 
occurred  in  the  fourteenth  year  of  his  reign.  Hastily  assuming  the 
order  of  narration  to  be  the  order  of  time,  and  inferring  a  closer  chro- 
nological juxtaposition  from  the  general  expression  "in  those  days" 
(Isai.  xxxviii.  i)  than  the  terms  really  require,  transcribers  may  have 
judged  that  consistency  demanded  the  number  "  fourteenth  "  in  xxxvi. 
I,  and  have  made  the  requisite  emendation.  But  now  if  x.xxviii.,  xxxi.x. 
really  precede  xx.xvi.,  xxxvii.  by  thirteen  years  —  and  that  they  are  prior 
in  order  of  time  appears  from  xxxviii.  6 —  then  a  convincing  argument 
thence  arises  that  these  chapters  are  original  in  Isaiah  and  borrowed 
thence  in  Kings.     This  inversion  of  the  chronological  order  is  unac- 


232  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

tradiction,  though,  to  make  it  out,  Micah's  comment 
on  his  own  words  (iv.  10),  ''thou  shalt  go  even  to 
Babylon,"  must  be  eUminated  from  the  text,  and 
Isaiah's  prediction  of  the  Babylonish  captivity  (xxxix. 
6)  is  oracularly  pronounced  to  be  spurious. 

Isaiah  predicts  (vii.  7,  8)  that  within  threescore  and 
five  years  Ephraim  shall  be  broken  that  it  be  not  a 
people,  and  (ver.  16)  that  this  process  of  extinction  shall 
be  begun  by  the  desolation  of  the  land  of  Ephraim 
before  a  child  could  reach  that  age  at  which  it  could 
know  to  refuse  the  evil  and  choose  the  good.  To 
Dr.  Kuenen's  mind  these  passages  contradict  one 
another,  though  both  are  in  exact  accordance  with 
the  event,  —  the  one  fulfilled  by  Tiglath-pileser,  the 
other  by  Esarhaddon.  Of  the  latter  he  rids  him.self 
in  the  easiest  manner  possible  by  assuming  an  inter- 
polation. Allow  him  to  expunge  what  he  pleases, 
and  to  put  his  own  meaning  on  what  he  suffers  to 
remain,  and  he  need  not  find  it  difficult  to  prove  or 
disprove  anything  he  likes. 

Isaiah  further  predicts  (vii.  15,  16)  that  Judah  should 
be  relieved  from  the  present  invasion  by  Syria  and 
Ephraim  within  three  or  four  years ;  that  butter  and 
honey,  the  subsistence  of  a  ravaged  country,  should 

countable  in  Kings,  while  in  Isaiah  the  whole  structure  of  the  book 
demands  it.  The  entire  preceding  section  of  the  book  of  Isaiah  con- 
sists of  prophecies  relating  to  the  Assyrian  invasion,  which  is  first 
completed  by  the  narrative  of  its  actual  occurrence.  Then  the  sick- 
ness of  Hezekiah,  followed  by  the  King  of  Babylon's  message  and  the 
prediction  of  the  captivity  in  Babylon  (xxxix.  5-7),  begins  a  new  sec- 
tion, containing  prophecies  relating  to  that  event  and  the  deliverance 
from  it. 


AND  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL.  233 

not  be  eaten  beyond  that  time.  Dr.  Kuenen  refers  it 
to  a  subject  with  which  it  has  nothing  in  the  world  to 
do,  and  makes  it  mean  that  the  invasion  by  Assyria 
and  Egypt  spoken  of  in  the  subsequent  verses  of  the 
chapter  should  occur  within  this  brief  interval.  And 
then  he  triumphantly  exclaims  (p.  169)  :  ''  But  it  did 
not  take  place.  In  the  reign  of  Ahaz,  and  also  dur- 
ing the  first  half  of  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  Judah 
continued  to  be  exempt  from  an  Assyrian  inva- 
sion." 

Jeremiah's  prediction,  steadfastly  adhered  to  from 
the  beginning  to  the  end  of  his  ministry,  of  the  over- 
throw of  Jerusalem  and  the  exile  of  the  people,  was 
confessedly  fulfilled.  But  Dr.  Kuenen  tries  to  break 
its  force  by  alleging  that  other  Prophets  took  a  con- 
trary view.  Habakkuk's  brief  prophecy  is  wholly 
occupied  with  the  judgment  upon  the  Chaldeans ;  we 
cannot  accordingly  expect  in  it  a  statement  of  what 
shall  befall  Jerusalem,  and  yet  even  here  see  i.  5-10. 
Upon  this  book  Dr.  Kuenen  makes  the  following  most 
extraordinary  comment:  ''  In  vain  do  we  attempt  to 
thrust  in  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  anywhere  into  his 
prophecies.  Habakkuk  has  not  even  a  faint  presenti- 
ment of  it ;  or  rather  he  denies  distinctly  that  such 
a  catastrophe  should  be  admitted  into  Jahveh's  pur- 
poses." Joel  of  the  preceding  period,  and  Zechariah 
(xii.-xiv.)  from  the  period  after  the  Exile,  are  dis- 
located from  their  true  position,  affirmed  on  the  most 
precarious  critical  grounds  to  be  Jeremiah's  contem- 
poraries, their  language  applied  to  a  matter  of  which 
they  are  not  treating,   and  they  are  thus    made  to 


2  34  KUENEN  ON   THE  PROPHETS 

declare  that,  contrary  to  the  allegations  of  Jeremiah, 
the  land  would  not  be  invaded  by  the  Chaldeans,  or 
that  the  LORU  would  visibly  interfere  at  the  moment 
of  the  capture  of  the  city.  And  to  cap  the  climax, 
the  false  prophet  Hananiah  (Jer.  xxviii.)  is  bolstered  up 
by  being  placed  in  such  company,  and  represented  as 
declaring  in  the  name  of  Jehovah,  with  as  much  right 
to  be  considered  His  messenger  as  Jeremiah,  directly 
the  opposite  of  what  the  latter  asserted.  And  on  this 
showing  it  is  affirmed  that  we  have  here  Prophet 
against  Prophet ! 

As  for  "the  predictions  which  have  reference  to  the 
restoration  of  Israel,"  Dr.  Kuenen  affirms,  and  he 
italicizes  his  affirmation,  "  not  one  of  them  has  been 
realized^  We  admit,  without  a  moment's  hesitation, 
that  if  these  predictions  are  to  be  understood  solely  in 
a  national  and  local  sense,  they  have  never  yet  been 
accomplished  in  anything  like  their  full  extent  of 
meaning.  But  this  very  fact  creates  a  presumption 
against  such  a  limitation.  The  judgments  denounced 
against  Israel  and  the  nations  have  all  been  inflicted, 
as  we  have  seen,  notwithstanding  Dr.  Kuenen's  con- 
tradiction. And  it  would  be  strange  if  in  the  prom- 
ised blessings  there  is  no  correspondence  whatever 
between  the  prediction  and  the  reality ;  and  this 
especially  as  there  was  in  the  return  from  the  Baby- 
lonish captivity  an  incipient  fulfilment  of  these  prom- 
ises in  every  particular,  which,  as  Dr.  Kuenen  is 
himself  forward  to  assure  us,  the  subsequent  Prophets 
recognized  as  "  the  beginning  of  the  realization  "  of 
them  (p.  194),  and  which  they  accepted  as  the  pledge 


AND   PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL. 


235 


of  their  full  and  final  accomplishment.  There  was  a 
return  from  Exile  though  it  was  partial,  not  total; 
and  there  was  no  such  vast  multiplication  of  the  peo- 
ple as  had  been  promised.  There  was  an  end  of  the 
schism  and  of  all  hostihty  between  Judah  and  Ephraim, 
though  no  complete  union  was  effected  of  these  two 
branches  of  the  covenant  people  in  one  body.  They 
were  led  by  a  prince  of  the  House  of  David,  but  no 
son  of  David  sat  as  king  upon  his  father's  throne ;  and 
Israel  remained  subject  to  the  domination  of  the  Gen- 
tiles instead  of  themselves  ruling  the  world.  There 
was  not  the  full  return  of  the  people  to  God,  nor  the 
abundant  tokens  of  His  favor  which  were  promised 
in  the  blissful  future. 

Considered  as  the  first  stage  of  accomplishment, 
the  restoration  from  Babylon  might  well  be  reckoned, 
as  was  done  by  Zechariah  and  his  compeers,  as  an 
earnest  of  more  to  come.  But  in  itself  it  plainly  fell 
far  below  the  prophetic  anticipations,  and  cannot  be 
regarded  as  a  complete  and  satisfactory  fulfilment  of 
what  had  been  foretold  in  such  glowing  terms.  And 
Dr.  Kuenen  is  right  in  insisting  that  these  predictions 
are  no  longer  **  capable  of  being  realized,"  if  this 
budding  fulfilment  has  proved  abortive,  and  after  the 
lapse  of  two  thousand  years  there  has  not  only  been 
no  further  progress  towards  fulfilment,  but  these  im- 
agined tokens  of  it  have  themselves  been  falsified 
and  obliterated  by  the  complete  abolition  of  Israel's 
national  existence  and  the  long  dispersion  of  ages. 
To  urge  as  the  only  defence  that  can  be  made  on 
behalf  of  these  predictions,  that  whereas  they  "are  not 


236  KUENEN  ON   THE  PROPHETS 

realized  as  yet,"  they  '-'shall  be  realized  somQ  time" 
by  "  the  return  of  the  whole  of  Israel  to  their  native 
country,  and  Israel's  supremacy  over  the  nations  of  the 
earth  in  the  last  days,"  is  to  *'  contradict  the  expla- 
nation of  the  old  prophecies  which  is  presented  in 
the  Old  Testament  itself"  (pp.  186,  196). 

But  whatever  may  still  remain  to  be  developed  in 
the  future,  and  in  whatever  form,  the  past  has  not  been 
unproductive.  The  promise  given  in  the  return  from 
captivity  has  already  been  succeeded  by  large  results. 
The  remnant  of  Israel  has  become  a  vast  multitude. 
The  Son  of  David  is  seated  upon  His  everlasting 
throne,  and  is  extending  His  conquests  among  the 
nations;  and  the  blessings  of  His  reign  are  unfolding 
themselves  in  the  experience  of  mankind.  The  hope 
of  Israel  is  realized  in  Christ  and  the  Gospel.  All  the 
prophetic  anticipations  of  coming  good  for  Israel  and 
the  world  were  linked  with  the  great  Redeemer  and 
King  who  was  to  rise  from  David's  line. 

Strangely  enough.  Dr.  Kuenen  goes  groping  through 
the  whole  Old  Testament,  and  absolutely  professes  his 
inability  to  find  any  prediction  of  a  personal  and  indi- 
vidual Messiah  there  at  all.  **  The  word  '  Messiah '  is 
not  used  in  the  Old  Testament  in  any  one  instance^' 
he  tells  us  in  emphatic  italics,  "  to  denote  a  descend- 
ant of  David  who  shall  reign  over  Israel  restored" 
(p.  202).  The  promise  to  our  first  parents  (Gen.  iii. 
15)  "  has  no  connection  "  with  this  subject;  "  the  ser- 
pent is  —  a  serpent  and  nothing  more  "  (p.  377).  The 
promise  to  Abraham  is  not  that  all  families  of  the 
earth  shall  be  blessed  in  him  or  in  his  seed,  but  that 


AND  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL.  237 

**  he  shall  be  so  prosperous,  his  posterity  shall  be  so 
numerous  and  fortunate,  that  nothing  better  or  higher 
can  be  imagined  than  the  enjoyment  of  what  he  or  his 
race  possesses."  The  blessing  pronounced  upon 
Judah  (Gen.  xlix.  10)  is  not  of  the  coming  of  Shiloh, 
but  of  the  coming  to  Shiloh,  "■  the  common  sanc- 
tuary." 

Jeremiah  "  does  not  expect  one  single  king  of 
David's  family,  but  an  unbroken  succession  of  Davidic 
kings  "  (p.  205).  The  same  is  the  case  with  Ezekiel 
(p.  209).  So,  too,  Micah  and  Zechariah  (ix.-xi.) : 
"The  king  whom  they  announce  is  described  as  one  of 
the  children  of  men,  but  therefore  seems  also  of  neces- 
sity to  partake  of  mortality,  the  lot  of  them  all." 
Probably  in  Zechariah  i.-viii.  "  the  man  whose  name 
is  Branch  "  is  "  regarded  also  by  him  as  the  first  of  an 
unbroken  succession  of  rulers  like  to  him."  **  In 
Isaiah  also  he  is  no  supernatural  being."  "  *  Mighty 
God  '  (Isai.  ix.  6),  viewed  in  itself,  might  have  afforded 
some  ground  for  the  conjecture  that  a  supernatural 
ruler  was  present  to  the  mind  of  the  Prophet,  and 
that  the  more  because  the  same  name  is  employed 
elsewhere  to  denote  Jahveh  (x.  21).  But  this  con- 
jecture is  not  confirmed  :  all  the  other  features  point  to 
a  king  of  human  origin."  "  It  is  possible  that  Isaiah 
attributed  an  endless  reign  to  the  king  himself  whom 
he  expected,"  but  his  meaning  more  probably  is 
**  that  nothing  shall  interrupt  the  regular  succession 
of  the  kings  of  his  house." 

In  Isaiah  xl.-lxvi.  **the  servant  of  Jehovah"  is  com- 
monly understood  by  believing  interpreters  to  denote 


238  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

the  true  people  of  God,  including  and  culminating  in 
the  Messiah,  who  was  to  spring  from  the  midst  of 
them,  and  with  whom  they  are  here  associated  or 
identified  in  their  mission,  character,  and  destiny,  in 
humiliation  and  in  glory.  This  simple  and  obvious 
interpretation  is  demanded  by  the  reference  (Iv.  3)  to 
''the  sure  mercies  of  David;  "  it  explains  what  Dr. 
Kuenen  admits  to  be  "  undeniable,  that  the  servant  of 
Jahveh  is  sometimes  described  as  if  he  were  one  indi- 
vidual ;  "  it  also  explains  how  he  can  have  a  work  to 
do  for  Israel  as  well  as  for  the  nations,  and  how  his 
sufferings  can  be  unmerited  and  vicarious ;  and  it  brings 
Isaiah  into  harmony  with  himself  and  with  the  other 
Prophets.  But  Dr.  Kuenen  prefers  to  find  here  a 
diversity  between  the  Prophets ;  ''  The  very  remarkable 
phenomenon  presents  itself,  that  the  expectations  con- 
cerning the  dynasty  of  David  become  disjoined  from 
their  proper  object,  and  are  transferred  to  the  whole 
people"  (p.  220).  He  actually  adduces  the  apparent 
conflict  between  the  death  and  burial  of  the  Servant 
of  Jehovah  (Isai.  liii.  8,  9),  and  his  prolonging  his 
days  and  enjoying  a  satisfying  reward  (vers.  10,  11), 
in  proof  that  "  the  particulars  which  the  Prophet 
mentions  must  be  distributed  among  the  different  per- 
sons who  together  constitute  the  collective  number." 
And  he  alleges  that  '*  what  is  communicated  regard- 
ing the  destiny  of  '  the  servant '  does  not  admit  of 
being  harmonized  with  the  description  of  the  scion  of 
David  given  by  Isaiah  and  Micah  "  (p.  223). 

The  Son  of  Man,  who  came  with  the    clouds  of 
Heaven  (Dan.  vii.  13),  is  in  his  view  not  the  Messiah, 


AND  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL. 


239 


but  the  Israelitish  nation.  And  Daniel's  prophecy 
of  the  70  weeks  (ix.  24  ff.)  has  nothing  to  do  with 
a  Messiah  of  the  House  of  David.  The  author,  who 
is  assumed  to  have  Hved  under  Antiochus  Epiphanes, 
is  simply  describing,  under  the  veil  of  prophecy,  what 
had  already  taken  place.  Jeremiah,  xxv.  11,  12,  xxix. 
10,  had  assigned  the  term  of  seventy  years  to  the  des- 
olations of  Jerusalem,  and  this  had  been  strictly  ful- 
filled according  to  Ezra  i.  i  ;  ir.  Chron.  xxxvi.  22. 
But  this  imaginary  author  is  supposed  to  have  thought 
otherwise,  and  accordingly  to  have  conceived  that 
Jeremiah  must  have  meant,  not  ordinary,  but  sabbati- 
cal years,  or  weeks  of  years,  and  to  have  developed  in 
vers.  24-27,  his  conception  of  that  prophecy  and  his 
adjustment  of  it  to  what  had  taken  place  down  to  his 
own  day.  "  The  going  forth  of  the  commandment  to 
restore  and  to  build  Jerusalem,"  which  is  (ver.  25) 
the  starting-point  of  the  70  weeks,  is  alleged  to  be 
Jeremiah's  prophecy  already  referred  to,  though  this 
related  to  an  entirely  different  matter  from  the  building 
of  Jerusalem,  —  viz.,  the  period  of  Babylon's  domina- 
tion and  of  Israel's  subjection  and  captivity.  From 
this  prophecy  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  until 
"  an  anointed  prince,"  who  is  not  the  Jewish  Messiah, 
but  Cyrus,  is  declared  to  be  '*  seven  weeks,"  or  49 
years ;  though  in  actual  fact,  and  according  to  the 
biblical  reckoning,  it  was  70  years  (a  computation 
which  is  implied  even  in  Dan.  ix.  2),  the  discrepancy 
being  laid  to  the  account  of  ignorance  in  the  writer. 
After  62  weeks  more,  or  434  years,  **  Messiah  is  cut 
off/'   not  the  Jewish  Messiah,  nor  Cyrus  as  before, 


240  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

but  the  high-priest  Onias.  In  reality  Onias  was  mur- 
dered 365  years  after  the  first  of  Cyrus,  leaving  an 
error  of  69  years  to  be  accounted  for  as  the  preced- 
ing. This  is  further  aggravated  in  the  present  in- 
stance by  the  allegation  made  in  a  different  connection, 
that  the  writer  knew  of  no  Persian  king  later  than 
Xerxes,  and  that  he  imagined  him  to  be  the  antago- 
nist of  Alexander.  The  deficit  is  thus  swelled  to 
200  years,  and  it  becomes  necessary  to  assume  that 
he  assigned  362  years  instead  of  162  to  the  empire  of 
Alexander  and  his  Syrian  successors  preceding  the 
death  of  Onias.  And  this  enormous  blunder  is  com- 
mitted in  a  period  with  the  details  of  whose  history  he 
shows  such  familiarity  in  ch.  xi.  that  mainly  on  this 
ground  the  book  is  pronounced  spurious  and  its  date 
fixed  during  the  persecutions  of  Antiochus  !  And  all 
this  to  escape  the  plain  reference  of  the  prophecy  to 
the  advent  of  the  Messiah.  Can  any  one  be  so  blind 
as  he  who  is  determined  not  to  see? 

Two  things  remain  to  be  accounted  for  after  this 
total  abstraction  from  the  Old  Testament  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Messiah,  and  especially  the  disappearance 
in  the  latest  Prophets  of  any  expectation  even  of  a 
revival  of  the  dynasty  of  David.  One  is  that  proph- 
ecies which  are  so  destitute  of  any  reference  to  the 
Messiah  should  ever  have  given  rise  to  the  expecta- 
tion of  His  coming.  Another  is  that  they  all  admit  of 
such  ready  application  to  Jesus  Christ. 

Dr.  Kuenen  objects  that  to  find  in  Christianity  the 
fulfilment  of  the  prophecies  respecting  Israel  is  to 
"  spiritualize  "  them,  and  thus  give  them  another  than 


AiXD  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL.  24 1 

their  real  meaning.  We  reply,  on  the  contrary,  that 
with  some  diversity  in  outward  form  and  incidental 
circumstances  there  is  nevertheless  the  closest  adher- 
ence to  the  essential  meaning  of  the  Prophets.  The 
fact  is,  as  Dr.  Kuenen  states  it  (p.  188),  with  the  view, 
not  of  recommending,  but  of  disparaging  the  current 
opinion  on  this  subject :  The  prophecies  of  the  Old 
Testament  are  *'  more  than  fulfilled,  or  in  other  words, 
the  reality  under  the  New  Testament  dispensation /^zr 
surpassed  the  expectations  under  the  Old." 

The  Prophets  everywhere  recognize  and  insist  upon 
the  distinction  between  the  outward  forms  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  their  inward  spiritual  meaning.  Isaiah 
declares  (i.  11-20)  that  it  is  not  sacrifices  and  burnt- 
offerings,  oblations  and  incense,  treading  God's  courts, 
new  moons  and  sabbaths,  feasts  and  assemblies,  that 
God  requires,  but  purity  of  heart  and  life,  and  obedi- 
ence to  His  will.  When  now  He  speaks  (ii.  2-4]  of  the 
nations  hereafter  going  up  to  the  mountain  of  Jehovah, 
to  the  house  of  the  God  of  Jacob,  it  is  plain  that  the 
external  act  of  pilgrimage  to  that  locality  does  not 
exhaust  his  thought:  it  is  in  fact  a  very  subordinate 
part  of  it.  Its  only  value  or  meaning  to  him  is  as  the 
legitimate  mode  of  expressing  his  essential  idea  that 
these  nations  would  pay  their  worship  to  the  God  of 
Israel,  would  be  taught  by  him  of  his  ways,  and  would 
walk  in  his  paths.  And  if  any  other  mode  of  doing 
this  is  equally  legitimate  and  acceptable  to  the  God 
of  Israel,  who  will  say  that  it  does  not  as  perfectly 
meet  Isaiah's  expectation  and  correspond  to  his 
thought?  —  especially   as   a    figurative    character   is 

16 


242  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

given  to  this  whole  representation  by  its  opening 
words.  Dr.  Kuenen  himself  says  (p.  247):  "The 
Prophet  may  be  understood  to  have  meant  figura- 
tively what  he  says  about  the  exaltation  of  Zion  on 
the  top  of  the  mountains ;  "  but  he  adds,  "■  On  the 
other  hand,  the  pilgrimage  to  the  Temple  on  Zion 
must  be  understood  literally.  .  .  .  We  should  deprive 
the  prophecy  of  its  meaning  and  force  if  we  attempted 
to  explain  it  spiritually."  There  is  nothing  to  justify 
this  assertion,  or  the  arbitrary  line  here  drawn  between 
what  is  figurative  and  what  is  literal,  unless  it  be  the 
positive  air  with  which  it  is  done. 

The  same  Prophet,  or,  according  to  Dr.  Kuenen's 
critical  hypothesis,  another  Prophet  in  a  later  age, 
declares  (Isai.  Ixvi.  1-3)  that  heaven  is  Jehovah's 
throne  and  the  earth  His  footstool ;  man  can  build 
Him  no  fitting  house  ;  the  offering  of  oxen  and  lambs 
and  incense  is  a  crime  and  an  abomination  to  Him, 
except  as  joined  with  and  expressing  inward  piety; 
He  regards  with  favor  only  him  that  is  humble  and  of 
a  contrite  spirit,  and  trembleth  at  His  word.  He  then 
adds  (ver.  23) :  "  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  that  from 
one  new  moon  to  another,  and  from  one  Sabbath  to 
another,  shall  all  flesh  come  to  worship  before  Me, 
saith  Jehovah."  Apart  from  the  physical  impossibil- 
ity of  weekly  and  monthly  pilgrimages  from  all  parts 
of  the  earth,  even  if  this  be  limited  to  lands  then 
known ;  apart  also  from  the  fact  that  this  is  greatly  in 
excess  of  the  requirements  of  the  Law,  which  enjoined 
pilgrimages  to  the  Sanctuary  but  thrice  in  the  year, 
at  the  annual  feasts  —  is  it  not  plain  that  the  stress  is 


AiYD  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL. 


243 


laid  upon  worship  before  Jehovah?  The  sacred  sea- 
sons and  the  central  sanctuary  are  simply  referred  to  as 
the  authorized  place  and  times  of  acceptable  service. 
If  the  same  authority  ■  which  had  hitherto  required 
them  should  hereafter  dispense  with  them,  of  what 
account  would  they  be  in  the  Prophet's  eyes?  It  is  to 
"  worship  in  spirit  and  in  truth  "  that  his  thought  was 
directed,  and  not  to  worship  in  Jerusalem,  except  as 
the  divinely  prescribed  place  of  a  true  and  spiritual 
adoration. 

Jehovah's  worship,  though  for  the  time  then  present 
it  had  a  local  seat,  was  not,  in  the  judgment  of  the 
Prophets,  bound  to  any  one  place  by  an  indissoluble 
tic.  The  worship  of  their  father  Abraham,  who  was 
the  friend  of  God  (Isai.  xli.  8),  was  untrammelled  by 
any  fixed  locality.  The  place  for  the  Sanctuary  was 
**  the  place  that  Jehovah  should  choose"  (Deut.  xii. 
5).  Jeremiah  speaks  of  God's  doing  to  Jerusalem  as 
He  had  done  to  Shiloh,  which  He  had  abandoned  (vii. 
12-14,  xxvi.  6).  He  looks  forward  to  a  time  when 
the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  should  not  be  remembered 
nor  missed  (iii.  16),  and  God's  new  covenant  should 
be  written  in  the  hearts  of  His  people  (xxxi.  31  ff.). 
Ezekiel  in  vision  saw  the  glory  of  Jehovah  forsake 
the  Temple  and  the  city  (xi.  23),  and  God  himself 
promised  to  be  a  Sanctuary  to  His  exiled  people  in 
the  countries  where  they  shall  come  (ver.  16). 

And  yet  when  a  Prophet  who  so  clearly  distinguishes 
between  the  shell  and  the  kernel  depicts  the  Temple 
and  the  service  and  the  Holy  Land  of  the  future,  Dr. 
Kuenen  insists  that  this  must  all  be  literally  under- 


244  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

stood  because  of  its  "  copiousness  and  entering  into 
minute  details"  (p.  240).  And  the  life-diffusing 
stream  from  the  Temple  (Ezek.  xlvii.),  which  forms  a 
part  of  the  same  picture,  was  in  the  intention  of  the 
Prophet  "  an  actual  stream,"  because  the  description 
is  "  so  exact  and  detailed  "  (p.  234),  though  the  cor- 
responding streams  spoken  of  by  Joel  (iii.  18)  and 
Zechariah  (xiv.  8)  are  admitted  to  be  figurative.  We 
are  prepared  to  hear  him  say  next,  for  a  like  reason, 
that  the  cherubim  so  minutely  described  (Ezek.  i.)  were 
actually  existing  beings,  wheels  and  eyes  and  all ;  and 
the  eagles  of  chapter  xvii.  were  literal  eagles ;  and  the 
women  of  chapter  xxiii.  literal  women ;  and  when  the 
restoration  of  Sodom  and  her  daughters  is  promised 
(xvi.  53-61),  the  Prophet  expected  the  buried  city  of 
Sodom  to  be  brought  up  from  the  bottom  of  the  Dead 
Sea  and  restored  to  its  former  condition.  He  could 
still  silence  all  objections  by  the  same  plea  that  he 
uses  now  (p.  242):  '*  What  we  should  almost  desig- 
nate as  fantastic  is  evidently  in  complete  accordance 
with  his  [Ezekiel's]  ideals." 

Dr.  Kuenen  himself  points  out  (p.  191)  the  close 
connection  between  the  ideas  of  the  return  of  Israel 
to  Canaan  and  their  conversion  to  God.  A  return 
to  Palestine  without  conversion  to  God  would  not  be 
what  was  in  the  Prophet's  mind  and  heart.  And  it  is 
only  as  Palestine  was  Jehovah's  land  that  returning  to 
it  had  any  religious  significance.  A  return  to  God 
and  the  enjoyment  of  his  favor  and  blessing  is  the 
essential  thought,  and  Canaan  is  but  the  outward 
form  in  which  that  favor  was  for  the  time  concen- 
trated. 


AND  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL.  245 

Moreover,  descent  from  the  Patriarchs  is  not  with 
the  Prophets  the  constituent  principle  of  the  people 
of  God.  Participation  in  the  blessings  promised  to 
Israel  is  not  determined  by  Hneage  or  by  nationality, 
but  by  inward  character  and  spiritual  relationship. 
'*  Ye  are  not  My  people,"  said  Hosea  (i.  9),  speaking 
in  the  name  of  Jehovah  to  the  -ungodly  Israelites, 
''and  I  will  not  be  your  God."  The  Prophets  with  one 
voice  denounce  the  judgments  of  God  upon  the  sinners 
in  Israel.  The  wicked  mass  must  be  purged  away; 
they  have  neither  part  nor  lot  in  the  good  things 
to  come ;  it  is  only  the  pure  remnant  that  are  left  for 
whom  the  promises  are  made.  Ezekiel  (xi.  15)  was 
instructed  to  recognize  "the  whole  house  of  Israel" 
in  the  exiles,  to  the  disregard  of  the  degenerate  inhab- 
itants of  Jerusalem,  who  were  abandoned  of  God  and 
given  over  to  destruction.  And,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  stranger  that  hath  joined  himself  to  Jehovah  need 
not  fear  separation  from  the  Lord's  people  (Isai. 
Ivi.  3).  And  when  (Isai.  xix.  25)  "Jehovah  of  Hosts 
shall  bless,  saying,  Blessed  be  Egypt  My  people,  and 
Assyria  the  work  of  My  hands,  and  Israel  mine  inher- 
itance," what  has  become  of  national  distinctions?^ 
How  can  even  Dr.  Kuenen,  with  any  consistency, 
refuse  to  recognize  in  Christianity  the  universal  wor- 
ship of  Jehovah  predicted  by  the  Prophets,  when  he 
imputes  to  Malachi  such  an  excess  of  liberalism  that 
when  he  speaks  (Mai.  i.  11)  of  the  incense  offered  to 
Jehovah's  name  in  every  place,  "  he  is  thinking  of  the 

1  See  the  passages  of  like  tenor  quoted  above,  pp.  220  f.,  and  nu- 
merous others  in  the  books  of  the  Prophets. 


246  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

zeal  and  sincerity  with  which  the  nations  served  their 
gods ;  he,  convinced  of  the  unity  of  Jahveh,  regards 
their  worship  as  being  properly  destined  and  intended 
for  the  one  true  God." 

We  have  not  adduced  the  authority  of  the  New 
Testament,  which  is  abundantly  and  decisively  given 
upon  this  point,  because  this  has  no  weight  with  Dr. 
Kuenen.  We  have  interpreted  the  meaning  of  the 
Prophets  in  this  matter  by  their  own  utterances.  And, 
themselves  being  judges,  no  bar  is  interposed  to  the 
recognition  of  the  fulfilment  of  their  prophecies  by  the 
changes  which  have  taken  place  in  the  outward  forms 
of  worship,  or  in  its  local  seat,  or  in  national  relations. 
The  Prophets  may  not  have  been  aware  of  the  changes 
which  Messiah's  coming  would  introduce.  There 
were  wise  reasons  why  the  temporary  nature  of  the 
Old  Testament  institutions  should  not  be  prematurely 
disclosed.  But  while  the  temporary  form  in  which 
their  ideas  were  clothed  has  been  stripped  away,  the 
ideas  abide  in  their  unchanging  reality  and  truth.  All 
that  was  essential  in  the  Prophets'  own  estimation, 
and  much  more  and  better  than  they  hoped  or  knew, 
has  been  accomplished  in  Christ  and  the  Gospel. 

We  have  now  examined  seriatim  every  prediction 
classed  by  Dr.  Kuenen  among  the  "unfulfilled  proph- 
ecies," whether  relating  to  the  Gentiles  or  to  Israel. 
We  believe  that  no  objection,  great  or  small,  that  he 
has  brought  against  them  has  escaped  attention.  And 
we  are  willing  to  submit  it  to  the  candid  reader  whether 
he  has  made  out  a  case  in  any  one  instance. 

Upon  this  flimsy  basis  rests  the  entire  argument 


AND  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL.  247 

contained  in  the  volume  which  we  are  examinin<^^ 
everything  else  being  subsidiary  and  supplemental. 
The  remainder,  though  offering  abundant  and  very 
inviting  matter  for  comment,  must  be  despatched  in 
a  very  few  sentences.  Dr.  Kuenen  seeks  to  rid  him- 
self of  the  prophecies,  which  he  confesses  to  have 
been  fulfilled,  in  three  several  ways. 

1st.  By  appealing  to  the  non-fulfilment  of  others, 
which  he  claims  to  have  established,  — with  what  jus- 
tice we  have  already  seen. 

2d.  By  the  legerdemain  of  modern  criticism,  which 
peremptorily  waives  aside  any  witness  that  it  is  not 
convenient  to  hear,  and  which  is  ever  ready  to  suspect 
the  genuineness  or  the  accuracy  of  the  text  upon 
grounds  which,  in  their  last  analysis,  cover  an  as- 
sumption of  the  very  point  to  be  proved,  —  viz.,  that 
prophecy  is  impossible. 

3d.  By  the  gratuitous  and  unfounded  allegation  of 
bad  faith  on  the  part  of  the  Prophets  themselves.  He 
distinctly  charges  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  in  particular 
with  having  modified  their  predictions  after  the  event, 
so  as  to  make  it  appear  that  they  had  minutely  and 
accurately  foretold  what  they  never  had  foretold  at 
all.  Thus  he  says,  in  regard  to  the  latter  Prophet 
(pp.  328-330):  "The  passages  of  Ezekiel  explained 
above  contain  no  real  predictions.  Whatever  he  may 
have  spoken  to  his  fellow-exiles  in  the  years  preceding 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  he  has  written  the  proph- 
ecies which  we  now  possess  after  that  catastrophe, 
without  troubling  himself  in  the  least  about  literal 
reproduction  of  his  oral  preaching."     **  Though  it  may 


248  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

be  impossible  to  reconcile  such  a  method  of  procedure 
with  our  notions  of  literary  good  faith,  yet  it  was  not 
uncommon  in  ancient  times,  and  specifically  in  Israel." 
'*  They  are  not  real  predictions,  but  historical  reminis- 
cences in  a  prophetical  form,  vaticinia  post  eventumy 
He  would  accordingly  have  us  suppose  that  these 
Prophets  falsely  claim  in  their  writings  to  have  uttered, 
time  after  time  the  most  astonishing  predictions, 
which  met  in  every  case  a  literal  and  precise  fulfil- 
ment ;  and  yet  their  auditors,  Avho  must  have  known 
the  falsity  of  this  claim,  at  once  accepted  these  writ- 
ings and  handed  them  down  as  true  prophecies  re- 
ceived by  inspiration  from  the  mouth  of  God.  We 
confess  that  we  are  of  Dr.  Kuenen's  own  opinion  with 
regard  to  this  expedient  of  his  (p.  328)  :  "  Many  will 
at  once  be  inclined  to  reject  it  as  a  subterfuge,  by 
the  help  of  which  I  try  to  escape  from  the  dogmatical 
conclusions  to  which  the  literally-fulfilled  prophecies 
of  Ezekiel  ought  to  have  led."  And  how  does  this 
assertion,  that  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  altered  and  re- 
touched their  predictions  to  make  them  correspond 
with  the  event,  comport  with  what  he  maintains  else- 
where, that  both  these  Prophets  have  included  among 
their  writings  predictions  {e.  g.,  respecting  Tyre  and 
Egypt)  which  had  been  glaringly  and  notoriously 
falsified  in  their  own  day,  and  that  Ezekiel  admits  it 
without  being  in  the  least  disturbed  thereby  (p.  1 10)  ? 

The  accounts  given  of  the  Prophets  in  the  historical 
books  are  swept  away  in  the  most  summary  and  re- 
lentless manner.  He  admits  (p.  401)  that  the  predic- 
tions of  "  the  Prophets  of  the  historical  books  extend 


AND   PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL.  249 

far  beyond  their  political  horizon,  arc  characterized 
by  definiteness  and  accuracy,  enter  into  the  more 
minute  particulars,  and  are  all,  without  distinction, 
strictly  fulfilled."  But  the  narratives  containing  them 
are  in  his  esteem  utterly  untrustworthy.  *'  They  are, 
in  the  first  place,  a  reflection  and  striking  representa- 
tion of  the  religious  belief  of  their  authors,  and  only 
ill  the  second  place  are  they  testimonies  regarding  the 
historical  reality.  This  reality  is  nowhere  to  be  found 
perfectly  pure  and  unmixed  in  these  narratives,  in  so 
far  as  they  are  anything  more  than  dry  chronicles;  it 
is  akvaysy  though  in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  colored 
by  the  subjective  conviction  of  the  narrator."  ''  The 
representation  given  of  the  PropJiets  and  prophecy  in  the 
historical  narratives  of  the  Old  Testament  is  no  testi- 
mony regarding,  but  is  itself  one  of  thefrnits  of  the  real 
Israclitish  prophecy''  {^.  436).  ''While  the  prophet- 
ical historians  sketched  the  past  of  Israel,  they  not 
only  felt  themselves  compelled  to  labor  for  the  reli- 
gious education  of  Israel,  but  they  thought  themselves 
also  justified  in  making  their  description  of  Israel's 
fortunes  subordinate  and  subservient  to  that  object. 
The  considerations  which  would  restrain  21s  from  treat- 
ing history  in  such  a  manner,  or  would  impede  ns  in 
doing  so,  had  for  them  no  existence  "  (p.  443).  In 
other  words,  Israelitish  history  is  a  pious  fraud,  con- 
cocted by  the  Prophets  from  first  to  last,  and  this  in 
spite  of  the  exalted  respect  which  he  professes  for 
their  character  and  work  !  —  and  nothing  whatever  in 
it  is  to  be  credited  but  just  what  the  critics  tell  us 
may  be  credited.     Here  is  in  a  nutshell  the  principle 


250  KUENEN  ON  THE  PROPHETS 

and  the  method  of  all  Dr.  Kuenen's  critical  processes 
and  results.  He  blows  his  subjective  soap-bubble  to 
whatever  size  he  may  fancy,  and  dances  it  before  his 
readers  in  its  variegated  beauty  and  apparent  solidity 
and  readiness  to  burst. 

It  does  not  embarrass  Dr.  Kuenen  in  the  slightest 
degree  that  the  New  Testament  throughout  ''  ascribes 
divine  foreknowledge  to  the  Israelitish  Prophets."  He 
very  naively  says  (p.  448) :  "  Its  judgment  concerning 
the  origin  and  nature  of  the  prophetical  expectations, 
and  concerning  their  relation  to  the  historical  reality, 
may  be  regarded  as  diametrically  opposed  to  ours." 
His  elaborate  attempt  to  show  that  the  New  Testa- 
ment writers  are  guilty  of  inaccuracies  and  mistakes 
in  quoting  from  the  Old  Testament,  and  that  they 
misunderstand  and  misinterpret  it,  merely  proves  what 
was  superfluously  clear  beforehand,  that  their  concep- 
tion of  Its  meaning  and  spirit  is  radically  different 
from  his.  Its  chief  value  consists  in  the  practical 
demonstration  which  it  affords,  that  they  who  reject 
the  inspiration  and  authority  of  the  Old  Testament, 
or  any  part  of  it,  must  by  inevitable  logical  necessity 
reject  likewise  that  of  the  New. 

Dr.  Kuenen  sees  In  prophecy  simply  a  deduction 
from  the  Prophets'  own  religious  convictions.  Jeho- 
vah's purposes  are  inferred  by  them  from  their  thor- 
ough persuasion  of  His  inflexible  righteousness  and 
His  sovereign  choice  of  Israel  to  be  His  people  on  the 
one  hand,  and  the  judgment  which  they  entertain  of 
Israel's  existing  moral  state  or  the  character  and  con- 
duct of  Gentile  nations  on  the  other.     Hence  ''the 


AND  PROPHECY  IN  ISRAEL. 


251 


prophetical  prediction  of  the  future"  is,  as  he  states  it 
(P-  359)'  the  necessarily  incorrect  conclusion  drawn 
from  premises  which  themselves  were  only  half  cor- 
rect." This  naturalistic  hypothesis  falls  with  the 
failure  to  prove  the  non-accomplishment  of  the  pre- 
dictions of  the  Prophets.  If,  as  is  really  the  case, 
what  they  have  foretold  has  unerringly  come  to  pass, 
prophecy  is  thereby  shown  to  be  the  word,  not  of  him 
who  knows  not  what  a  day  may  bring  forth,  but  of 
Him  who  'Meclareth  the  end  from  the  beginning."  It 
is  the  word,  not  of  man,  but  of  God.  And  it  is  plainly 
futile  to  attempt  to  account  for  it  on  natural  princi- 
ples—  as,  for  example,  that  Jeremiah's  strong  faith 
wrought  upon  the  exiles,  and  their  faith  wrought  upon 
Cyrus,  who  by  a  lucky  chance  appeared  just  at  the 
right  time  and  became  the  conqueror  of  Babylon 
(p-  3I5)>  ^^d  thus  brought  about  the  return  from  cap- 
tivity after  seventy  years ;  or  Isaiah  by  his  faith  per- 
suaded Hezekiah  and  his  people  to  persevere  in  their 
resistance  to  Sennacherib  until  fortunatel}'  the  plague 
swept  off  his  army  (p.  298).  On  this  principle  such  a 
chapter  of  accidents  w^ould  be  required  to  save  the 
credit  of  the  Prophets  as  would  involve  that  very 
supernatural  intervention  that  the  hypothesis  was  in- 
vented to  escape ;  and  that,  too,  in  a  form  far  more 
incredible  than  the  simple  faith  of  ages,  that  "  proph- 
ecy came  not  in  old  time  by  the  will  of  man ;  but 
holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the 
Holy  Ghost." 


DR.    ROBERTSON    SMITH    ON    THE 
PROPHETS    OF    ISRAEL. 


DR.  W.   ROBERTSON   SMITH   ON   THE 
PROPHETS    OF   ISRAEL.1 

"\T  7E  have  read  this  second  vokime  of  Dr.  Robcrt- 
^  ^  son  Smith  with  disappointment  and  pain. 
The  announcement  of  a  fresh  course  of  lectures 
from  his  vigorous  and  graphic  pen,  in  which  the 
Prophets  of  Israel  were  to  be  treated  in  relation  to 
their  own  times,  naturally  awakened  high  expec- 
tations. It  would  have  been  unreasonable  to  de- 
mand in  all  his  productions  an  equal  measure  of  the 
literary  charm  that  attached  in  such  an  extraor- 
dinary degree  to  "  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish 
Church ;  "  in  which  even  unprofessional  readers 
found  the  dry  details  of  technical  discussion  invested 
with  the  interest  of  an  exciting  story,  as  they  were 
led  by  a  connected  argument  through  the  mazes  of 
Biblical  criticism,  from  the  state  of  the  text  to  the  age 
of  the  Pentateuch.  And  it  need  occasion  no  sur- 
prise that  his  conclusions  respecting  the  Prophets 
cannot  be  accepted  by  those  who  have  been  con- 
strained   to    dissent    from    his   views    previously  ex- 

1  The  Prophets  of  Israel,  and  their  Place  in  History  to  the  close 
of  the  eighth  century  b.  c.  Eight  Lectures  by  W.  Robertson  Smith, 
LL.  D.     Edinburgh,  18S2. 


256  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

pressed.  But  we  confess  that  we  were  not  pre- 
pared for  the  extremely  low  estimate  here  put 
upon  the  rehgion  of  Israel  and  the  teaching  of  the 
Prophets. 

With  the  devout  spirit  that  breathed  in  the  former 
work  there  seemed  to  be  joined  a  high  appreciation 
of  the  Old  Testament  revelation  and  of  Old  Testa- 
ment saints,  and  particularly  the  Prophets  as  the  ad- 
vocates of  a  spiritual  in  opposition  to  a  ritual  or 
materialistic  worship.  And  with  this  the  critical 
conclusions  respecting  Deuteronomy  and  the  Levi- 
tical  law  were  not  necessarily  inconsistent.  ^  Though 
it  was  alleged  that  the  Pentateuchal  Law  did  not  pro- 
ceed directly  from  Moses,  it  was  held  to  be  the  work 
of  other  servants  of  God,  and  to  have  been  given  to 
Israel  in  successive  portions  at  later  periods  of  time. 
The  date  was  altered  but  the  contents  remained  the 
same,  and  there  was  no  apparent  disposition  to  under- 
rate their  meaning  or  value.  This  might  seem  rather 
to  be  enhanced  by  the  assumption  that  such  laws 
were  insupposable  in  the  infancy  of  the  nation  and 
at  the  outset  of  God's  deahngs  with  Israel,  and  that 
they  must  mark  subsequent  epochs  in  the  divinely 
guided  history.  The  Prophets,  however,  suffer  much 
more  severely  at  his  hands.  They  are  with  some  ex- 
ceptions allowed  to  stand  each  in  his  own  proper 
date,  but  the  contents  of  their  teaching  are  evapo- 
rated in  the  crucible  of  the  new  hypothesis  until  an 
almost  impalpable  residuum  of  religious  truth  is  all 
that  is  left;  and  even  this  was  inaccurately  conceived 
by   the    Prophets,   who  are,  moreover,  irreconcilably 


ON  THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL. 


'57 


at  variance  with  one  another  in  their  statements  of  it. 
And  this  is  commended  to  us  as  the  revelation  of 
God  through  the  Prophets. 

We  admit  without  hesitation  that  we  can  no 
more  determine  a  priori  what  a  revelation  from  God 
must  contain  as  a  whole,  or  in  any  of  its  parts,  than 
we  can  prescribe  how  the  world  should  be  made. 
The  Most  High  must  always  act  worthily  of  Himself 
and  suitably  to  the  end  which  He  has  in  view.  But 
we  learn  what  He  judged  it  fit  to  do  by  ascertaining 
what,  in  actual  fact,  He  has  done.  It  is  by  the  direct 
study  of  the  Scriptures  themselves,  and  of  each  sepa- 
rate portion  of  them  by  itself,  —  in  the  declarations 
there  made  and  the  phenomena  exhibited,  —  not  by 
a  priori  reasonings,  that  we  are  to  discover  in  what 
sense  the  Scriptures  are  the  Word  of  God  and  what 
revelations  He  has  therein  made  to  us.  And  in  in- 
terpreting Scripture  we  must  not  make  it  square  with 
our  notions  of  what  it  ought  to  be,  but  simply  inquire 
what  it  actually  is.  There  must,  we  insist,  be  a 
thoroughly  unbiassed  and  candid  interpretation  of  its 
facts  and  contents.  If  force  must  not  be  put  upon 
it  to  bring  forth  spiritual  mysteries  which  it  does  not 
contain,  or  to  find  in  its  earlier  sections  disclosures 
which  were  reserved  for  a  later  time,  neither  must  it, 
on  the  other  hand,  be  pared  down  to  the  level  of  what 
some  philosophical  theory  of  religious  development 
may  be  willing  to  allow. 

The  human  element  in  Scripture,  of  which  we  hear 
so  much  at  the  present  time,  is  not  to  be  discarded 
or  explained  away.     It  has  its  importance  and  value 


258  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

for  the  proper  understanding  and  due  appreciation  of 
the  sacred  volume.  But  neither  is  the  divine  char- 
acter of  Scripture  to  be  depreciated  or  set  aside. 
No  theory  of  inspiration  or  of  non-inspiration  can  be 
accepted,  as  the  final  truth  upon  this  subject,  which 
cannot  abide  the  most  searching  examination  in  the 
light  of  all  the  facts  bearing  on  the  case.  Any  in- 
vestigations which  enter  more  deeply  into  this  ques- 
tion or  elicit  any  fresh  data  for  its  determination  are 
to  be  welcomed.  Every  advance  made  toward  a 
correct  appreciation  of  any  of  the  factors  which  have 
contributed  to  the  formation  of  the  Bible,  or  any  of 
its  books,  is  a  positive  gain,  whatever  may  have  been 
the  motive  or  immediate  aim  of  those  by  Whom  it  is 
brought  out.  And  particularly  it  is  a  hopeful  sign 
if  increased  attention  is  directed  to  the  persons  of  the 
Prophets  and  the  times  in  which  they  lived,  the  con- 
ceptions which  then  prevailed,  the  ordinary  life  of 
the  people,  the  questions  which  agitated  men's 
minds,  the  emergencies  which  called  for  prophetic 
interference,  and  what  was  from  time  to  time  at- 
tempted or  accomplished  by  It.  Assuredly  we 
shall  decline  no  aid  in  these  matters  even  from 
Wellhausen,  Kuenen,  or  Duhm,  especially  as  their 
views  are  interpreted  for  us  in  the  lucid  periods  of 
Dr.  Robertson  Smith  or  modified  into  more  accepta- 
ble forms  by  his  independent  reflections. 

We  have  no  quarrel  with  our  author  for  the  ex- 
tent to  which  he  is  disposed  to  trace  the  person- 
ality of  the  Prophets  in  their  several  messages. 
This  does  not  conflict  in  the  slightest  degree  with  the 


ON  THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL.  259 

common  doctrine  of  inspiration.  The  entire  person 
of  the  Prophet  was  God's  organ  in  making  known 
His  will.  His  native  endowments,  the  experiences  of 
his  hfe,  all  that  contributed  to  form  his  character,  to 
determine  or  deepen  his  convictions,  to  shape  his 
style  of  thought  or  action,  in  fine  to  make  him 
what  he  was,  was  a  part  of  his  providential  training 
for  his  work.  The  more  thoroughly  we  know  him 
as  a  man,  the  better  we  can  appreciate  his  adaptation 
as  a  Prophet  to  his  own  age  and  to  his  own  country- 
men. The  vexed  question  respecting  Hosea's  mar- 
riage, which  has  been  a  fruitful  source  of  disputation 
from  the  days  of  Jerome,  may  never  be  settled  to 
universal  satisfaction.  But  there  is  certainly  much 
that  is  attractive  in  the  idea  (pp.  178  ff.)  that  the 
Prophet  was  first  taught  the  lesson  by  a  bitter  domes- 
tic experience,  which  he  subsequently  labored  to 
impress  upon  the  transgressing  people,  and  that  the 
yearnings  of  his  own  affectionate  heart,  toward  one 
who  had  so  basely  wronged  him,  led  him  up  to  his 
conception  of  the  persistent  love  of  God  to  idolatrous 
Israel,  and  gave  him  a  clearer  insight  into  His  provi- 
dential dealings  with  His  people.  And  we  have  in 
the  book  of  Habakkuk  a  remarkably  clear  instance  of 
the  wrestling  conflict  of  which  revelations  were  born: 
the  inward  struggle  with  great  moral  problems  that 
clamored  for  solution,  the  mental  process  by  which  the 
strife  was  calmed  and  assured  conviction  attained,  — 
and  distinguished  from  this,  and  additional  to  it,  the 
divine  communication  for  which  the  mind  was  ante- 
cedently prepared. 


26o  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

Dr.  Robertson  Smith  expresses  his  dissent  (p.  9) 
from  the  views  of  those  who 

"  maintain  that  there  was  no  specific  difference  between 
the  growth  of  divine  truth  in  Israel  and  the  growth  of  truth 
among  other  nations.  The  Prophets  who  were  the  organs  of 
God's  teaching  in  Israel  appear  to  them  to  stand  on  the 
same  line  with  the  other  great  teachers  of  mankind,  who 
were  also  searchers  after  truth  and  received  it  as  a  gift  from 
God.  .  .  The  practical  point,  in  all  controversy  as  to  the  dis- 
tinctive character  of  the  revelation  of  God  to  Israel,  regards 
the  place  of  Scripture  as  the  permanent  rule  of  faith  and  the 
sufficient  and  unfailing  guide  in  all  our  rehgious  life.  When 
we  say  that  God  dealt  with  Israel  in  the  way  of  special  revel- 
ation, and  crowned  His  dealings  by  personally  manifesting  all 
His  grace  and  truth  in  Christ  Jesus  the  incarnate  Word,  we 
mean  that  the  Bible  contains  within  itself  a  perfect  picture 
of  God's  gracious  relations  with  man,  and  that  we  have  no 
need  to  go  outside  of  the  Bible  history  to  learn  anything  of 
God  and  His  saving  will  towards  us,  —  that  the  whole  growth 
of  the  true  religion  up  to  its  perfect  fulness  is  set  before  us 
in  the  record  of  God's  deahngs  with  Israel,  culminating  in 
the  manifestion  of  Jesus  Christ.  There  can  be  no  question 
that  Jesus  Himself  held  this  view,  and  we  cannot  depart 
from  it  without  making  Him  an  imperfect  teacher  and  ah 
imperfect  Saviour.  Yet  history  has  not  taught  us  that  there 
is  anything  in  true  religion  to  add  to  the  New  Testament. 
We  still  stand  in  the  nineteenth  century  where  He  stood  in 
the  first ;  or  rather  He  stands  as  high  above  us  as  He  did 
above  his  disciples  —  the  perfect  Master,  the  Supreme  Head 
of  the  fellowship  of  all  true  religion  "  (pp.  10,  11). 

The  imperfect  knowledge  of  God  reached  by  Gen- 
tile nations,  the  lack  of  any  solid  and  continuous  pro- 


ON  THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL.         26  I 

gress  in  religious  things  among  them,  and  the  decay 
of  their  noblest  religions,  as  contrasted  with  the  steady 
progress  in  the  knowledge  of  God  given  to  Israel, 
until  it  ''merged  in  the  perfect  religion  of  Christ  which 
still  satisfies  the  deepest  spiritual  needs  of  mankind," 
is  urged  in  proof  that  the  revelation  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments  may  fairly  claim  to  be  the  revelation 
of  God  to  men  in  a  special  and  absolute  sense 
(p.  14).  "  It  is  not  necessary,"  he  adds,  '*  to  encum- 
ber the  argument  by  comparing  the  way  in  which 
individual  divine  communications  were  given  to  Israel, 
with  the  way  in  which  the  highest  thinkers  of  other 
nations  came  to  grasp  something  of  spiritual  truth ;  " 
that  is,  as  we  understand  him,  it  is  undesirable  to 
raise  the  question  whether  Hebrew  Prophets  ascer- 
tained the  truth  in  any  such  way  as  made  them  au- 
thoritative teachers  of  the  will  of  God,  and  exempted 
them  from  errors  in  its  communication.^ 

1  On  page  82  the  Doctor  draws  a  distinction  between  prophets 
and  uninspired  preachers,  which  might  seem,  at  first  sight,  to  be  iden- 
tical with  the  commonly  received  doctrine  on  this  subject.  "Jehovah 
did  not  first  give  a  complete  theoretical  knowledge  of  Himself  and 
then  raise  up  prophets  to  enforce  the  application  of  the  theoretical 
scheme  in  particular  circumstances.  That  would  not  have  rcciuired 
a  prophet ;  it  would  have  been  no  more  than  is  still  done  by  unin- 
spired preachers.  The  place  of  the  prophet  is  in  a  religious  crisis, 
where  the  ordinary  interpretation  of  acknowledged  principles  breaks 
down,  where  it  is  necessary  to  go  back,  not  to  received  doctrine,  but 
to  Jehovah  Himself.  The  word  of  Jehovah,  through  the  iiroi)hct, 
is  properly  a  declaration  of  what  Jehovah,  as  the  personal  King  of 
Israel,  commands  in  this  particular  crisis;  and  it  is  spoken  with  au- 
thority, not  as  an  inference  from  previous  revelation,  but  as  the  direct 
expression  of  the  character  and  will  of  a  personal  God,  who  has 
made  Himself  personally  audible  in  the  prophet's  soul."    A  careful 


262  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

Now  this  may,  in  the  connection,  simply  refer  to 
the  place  that  the  supernatural  claims  of  the  Prophets 
should  hold  in  an  apologetical  argument.  In  endeav- 
oring to  force  conviction  on  unbelievers,  it  might  not 
be  wise  to  bring  the  supernatural  evidences  of  our 
religion  to  the  front,  and  engage  in  a  disputation 
upon  inspiration  and  infallibility  in  the  first  instance. 
As  he  says  (p.  i6)  :  ''The  miraculous  circumstances 
of  its  promulgation  need  not  be  used  as  the  first 
proof  of  its  truth,  but  must  rather  be  regarded  as  the 
inseparable  accompaniments  of  a  revelation  which 
bears  the  historical  stamp  of  reality."  There  is  un- 
questionably reason  and  sound  sense  is  this.  If  the 
measureless  superiority  of  the  religion  of  the  Bible 
over  any  Gentile  system  be  first  established  by  pal- 
pable and  undeniable  considerations,  it  may  be 
hoped  that  the  minds  of  opposers  will  thus  be  better 
prepared  to  admit  the  evidence  of  its  supernatural 
origin.  It  is  as  the  accompaniment  and  the  attesta- 
tion of  revealed  truth,  and  not  as  isolated  prodigies, 
that  miracles  are  convincing. 

But  when  we  consider  the  whole  drift  of  the  Lec- 
tures which  are  thus  prefaced,  we  think  that  no  injus- 

inspection  of  these  words,  however,  shows  with  what  care  they  have 
been  selected.  God  may  "make  Himself  personally  audible  in  the 
prophet's  soul  "  simply  as  He  does  in  the  divine  illumination  enjoyed 
by  all  truly  pious  men.  Their  devout  intercourse  with  God  leads  to 
an  intimate  acquaintance  with  His  character,  and  an  instinctive  appre- 
hension of  what  His  will  must  be  in  any  given  case.  And  thus  the 
thought  will  not  be  excluded  that,  along  with  "  the  word  of  Jehovah 
through  the  prophet,"  there  may  be  uttered  much  that  savors  of  hu- 
man weakness  and  error.  And  that  this  is  his  real  meaning  appears 
from  the  entire  tenor  of  the  volume. 


ON  THE   PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL.  26^ 

tice  is  done  the  distinguished  lecturer  by  surmising 
that  he  meant  more  than  appears  upon  the  surface. 
If  he  can  suggest  no  other  reason  for  the  sacredness 
of  Sinai  than  (p.  34),  "  The  storm  that  broke  on  the 
mountains  of  Sinai,  and  rolled  across  the  desert  in  fer- 
tilizing showers,  made  the  godhead  of  Jehovah  real,  " 
and  if  the  teachings  of  the  Prophets  were  such  as  he 
in  extciiso  represents  them  to  be,  we  cannot  help  sus- 
pecting that  his  distrust  of  the  supernatural  facts  of 
the  Bible  contributed  to  his  reluctance  to  lay  too 
much  stress  upon  them. 

And  when  he  proposes  (p.  16)  to  place  the  defenders 
of  revelation  on  such  vantage-ground  that  they  "  need 
no  longer  be  afraid  to  allow  free  discussion  of  the  de- 
tails of  its  history,"  —  that  ''  they  can  afford  to  meet 
every  candid  inquirer  on  the  fair  field  of  history,  and 
to  form  their  judgment  on  the  actual  course  of  revela- 
tion by  the  ordinary  methods  of  historical  investi- 
gation,"—  the  implication  seems  to  be  that  a  fair 
application  of  the  ordinary  methods  of  historical  in- 
vestigation would  seriously  alter  the  views  commonly 
entertained  respecting  the  actual  course  of  revela- 
tion; and  this  it  is  the  object  of  the  volume  before 
us  to  establish  in  regard  to  the  Prophets. 

It  informs  us,  for  instance,  that  the  prophet  Elijah 
was  indifferent  to  the  worship  of  the  golden  calves 
(p.  109).  It  seems  that  Hosea  was  the  first  to  dis- 
cover that  there  was  anything  wrong  in  this  form  of 
idolatry. 

"  There  is  no  feature  in  Hosea's  prophecy  which  distin- 
guishes him  from  earlier  Prophets  so  sharply  as  his  attitude 


264  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

to  the  golden  calves,  the  local  symbols  of  Jehovah  adored  in 
the  Northern  sanctuaries.  Elijah  and  Elisha  had  no  quarrel 
with  the  traditional  worship  of  their  nation.  Even  Amos 
never  speaks  in  condemnation  of  the  calves  "  (p.  175).  .  .  . 
''  The  revolution  inaugurated  by  Elijah  and  Elisha  appealed 
to  the  conservatism  of  the  nation.  It  was  followed  therefore 
by  no  attempt  to  remodel  the  traditional  forms  of  Jehovah's 
worship,  which  continued  essentially  as  they  had  been  since 
the  time  of  the  Judges.^     The  golden  calves  remained  undis- 

1  In  the  connection  this  can  have  no  other  meaning  than  that  the 
sanctuary  of  the  golden  calf  at  Dan  was  identical  with  the  idolatrous 
shrine  founded  there  by  the  Danites  (Judg.  xviii.  30,  31).  But  the 
duration  of  the  latter  is  expressly  limited  to  "  the  time  that  the  house 
of  God  was  in  Shiloh  ;  "  this  expired  with  the  capture  of  the  Ark  by 
the  Philistines.  This  expression  defines  the  phrase  in  ver.  30,  "  the 
day  of  the  captivity  of  the  land,"  which  can,  therefore,  only  refer  to 
the  overthrow  which  Israel  then  experienced,  and  which  is  spoken  of 
in  similar  terms  (Ps.  Ixxviii.  61  ff.).  And  if  the  narrative  received  its 
present  form  before  the  Assyrian  Exile,  which  there  is  no  good  reason 
to  question,  the  Philistine  domination  is  the  only  event  to  which  it 
can  naturally  be  referred.  There  is,  besides,  no  intimation  that  Mi- 
cah's  graven  image  (Judg.  xvii.  3)  was  in  the  form  of  a  calf.  There 
is  no  mention  of  calf-worship  in  Israel  in  the  period  of  the  Judges,  or 
thenceforward  until  the  time  of  Jeroboam,  and  there  are  no  known 
facts  from  which  its  existence  can  be  inferred.  The  establishment  of 
the  idolatrous  worship  at  Bethel  and  Dan  is  explicitly  referred  to  Jero- 
boam and  the  circumstances  of  its  institution  narrated  in  detail,  i.  Kings 
xii.  28,  29.  These  point  (ver.  2)  to  Egypt  as  its  source,  which  was 
likewise  the  case  in  the  only  previous  instance  of  it  in  the  whole  his- 
tory of  the  people  —  namely,  the  trespass  of  Aaron  in  the  Wilderness 
(Ex.  xxxii.  4).  The  allegation  (p.  38)  that  "  in  many  places  a  priesthood, 
claiming  kinship  with  Moses,  administered  the  sacred  oracle  as  his 
successors,"  is  a  very  broad  statement  considering  its  narrow  basis  of 
fact.  If  the  conjecture  be  correct  that  literce  suspensce  form  no  part 
of  the  text,  then  "  Manasseh "  (Judg.  xviii.  30)  should  read 
"  Moses,"  and  there  would  be  proof  of  "  a  priesthood  claiming  kin- 
ship with  Moses,"  in  one  idolatrous  sanctuary. 


ON  THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL.  265 

tiirbed,  though  they  were  plainly  out  of  place  in  the  worship 
of  a  Deity  who  had  so  markedly  separated  Himself  from  the 
gods  of  the  nations  "  (p.  96). 

Such  statements  cannot  be  characterized  otherwise 
than  as  an  atrocious  misrepresentation.     If  there  is 
any  one  thing  of  which  Jehovah  expresses  His  utter 
abhorrence  everywhere  throughout  the  Scriptures,  it 
is  the  practice  of  idolatry  in  whatever  form ;   and  that 
a  true  prophet  of  the  Lord,  jealous  as  Elijah  was  for 
His  name  and  worship  in  a  time  of  widespread  apos- 
tasy,  and  to  whose   divine   commission  such   signal 
attestations  were  given  by  the  Lord  Himself,  could 
possibly    have    been    ''indifferent"    to    what   was  so 
grossly  dishonoring  to  God,  or,  as  it  is  mildly  put  in 
the  passage  above  cited,  "  plainly  out  of  place  "  in  His 
worship,    is   absolutely   beyond    belief.     The    earlier 
Prophets  were  precisely  of  the  same  mind  with  Hosea 
in  respect  to  the  golden  calves.     Ahijah  of  Shiloh,  in 
the  tribe  of  Ephraim,  who  had  foreshown  to  Jero- 
boam his  elevation  to  the  throne  (l.  Kings  xi.  29  {{.), 
denounced  his  sin  in  the  strongest  terms   (xiv.  9). 
So  did  the  man  of  God   who  came  from  Judah  to 
prophesy  against  Jeroboam's  altar  (xiii.  2),  and  whose 
words  were  reaffirmed  even  by  the  lying  prophet  of 
Bethel    (vcr.    32).     And   Jehu,    the   son  of  Hanani, 
uttered  a  like  message  of  denunciation  to  Baasha  for 
walking  in  the  way  of  Jeroboam  (xvi.  I,  2).    Jchosha- 
phat's    distrust    of  the    four   hundred    prophets    who 
professed   to  declare  to  Ahab  the  will  of  the  LoRD, 
and  his  insisting  on  a  prophet  of  Jehovah   besides, 
shows  what  he  thought  of  the  worship  of  the  calves ; 


266  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

and  when  MIcaiah  was  summoned,  he  distinctly 
charged  his  antagonists  with  speaking  under  the  in- 
fluence of  a  lying  spirit  (l.  Kings  xxii).^ 

Unless  therefore  Dr.  Robertson  Smith  is  prepared 
to  deny  with  Kuenen  that  any  dependence  is  to  be 
put  upon  predictions  recorded  in  the  historical  books, 
the  Prophets  did  lift  up  their  voice  against  the  wor- 
ship of  the  calves  from  the  very  beginning.  And 
even  though  these  particular  narratives  be  discredited 
the  fact  remains;  for  such  stories  could  not  have 
arisen,  and  gained  credence,  unless  they  correctly 
represented  the  known  attitude  of  the  LORD'S  true 
Prophets. 

We  are  told  (p.  109)  that  the  histories  of  Elijah 
and  Elisha,  as  *'  every  one  can  see,"  are  ancient  and 
distinct  documents,  which  represent  an  earlier  belief 
than  the  Books  of  Kings  in  which  they  have  been 
incorporated.^  It  is  nevertheless  plain  that  the  au- 
thor of  Kings,  w4io  never  lets  slip  an  opportunity  to 
express  his  detestation  of  the  worship  of  the  calves, 
could  not  have  suspected  Elijah  or  Elisha  of  com- 
plicity with  it,  or  he  would  not  have  failed  to  enter 
his   dissent   (II.  Kings  xvii.  13).     If  the  reformation 

1  According  to  Wellhausen  (p.  251  of  his  edition  of  Bleek's  Ein- 
leitung)  this  account,  as  well  as  that  in  ii.  Kings  lii.,  originated  in  the 
kingdom  of  Samaria.  We  may  consequently  presume  that  it  is  not 
colored  to  the  prejudice  of  the  national  worship  of  the  Ten  Tribes. 

■■2  And  p.  116:  "The  story  of  Elijah  and  Elisha  clearly  took  shape 
in  the  Northern  Kingdom;  it  is  told  by  a  narrator,  who  is  full  of  per- 
sonal interest  in  the  affairs  of  Ephraim,  and  has  no  idea  of  criticising 
Elijah's  work,  as  the  Judaean  editor  criticises  the  whole  history  of  the 
North,  by  constant  reference  to  the  schismatical  character  of  the 
Northern  sanctuaries." 


ON   THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL.  267 

undertaken  by  Elijah  aimed  at  nothing  more  than 
was  accomplished  by  Jehu,  it  would  have  been  spoken 
of  in  similar  terms  (ll.  Kings  x.  28,  29).  These  Lec- 
tures, however,  assert  that  Elijah's  zeal  was  not  directed 
against  the  golden  calves,  which  were  recognized 
symbols  of  Jehovah,  but  simply  against  the  service  of 
Baal;  though '*  in  building  and  endowing  a  temple 
for  his  wife,  Ahab  did  no  more  than  Solomon  had 
done  without  exciting  much  opposition  on  the  part 
of  his  people."  Perhaps  the  Doctor  forgets  that  on 
this  very  account  Solomon  was  threatened  with  the 
loss  of  his  kingdom  (i.  Kings  xi.  33),  and  the  danger 
was  sufficiently  formidable  to  lead  him  to  seek  the 
life  of  Jeroboam  (ver.  40).  Ahab,  it  seems,  had  no 
idea  that  he  was  breaking  the  first  commandment. 
"  Even  if  we  are  to  suppose  that  practical  religious 
questions  were  expressly  referred  to  the  words  of  this 
precept,  it  would  not  have  been  difficult  to  interpret 
them  in  a  sense  that  meant  only  that  no  other  God 
should  have  the  pre-eminence  over  Israel's  king."  If 
this  be  so,  we  do  not  see  wh}^  a  like  latitude  of  inter- 
pretation might  not  have  been  applied  to  Deut.  xii.  5, 
and  "the  place  which  the  Lord  shall  choose"  have 
been  understood  to  mean  any  place  whatever  where 
divine  worship  was  established.  Jeroboam  may  not 
have  thought  himself  guilty  of  any  infraction  of  this 
law,  nor  any  other  adherent  of  the  alleged  "  local 
sanctuaries."  What  then  becomes  of  the  argument 
for  the  non-existence  of  Deuteronomy,  drawn  from 
the  neglect  of  this  fundamental  statute  ?  It  was 
simply  set  aside  b)-  a  mistaken  exegesis. 


268  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

Elijah's  austere  opposition  to  "the  god  of  a  friendly 
state  "  was  an  advance  upon  all  previous  practice. 

"  Hitherto  all  Israel's  interest  in  Jehovah  had  had  practical 
reference  to  His  contests  with  the  gods  of  hostile  nations, 
and  it  was  one  thing  to  worship  deities  who  were  felt  to  be 
Jehovah's  rivals  and  foes,  and  quite  another  thing  to  allow 
some  recognition  to  the  deity  of  an  allied  race.  But  Elijah 
saw  deeper  into  the  true  character  of  the  God  of  Israel. 
Where  He  was  worshipped  no  other  god  could  be  acknowl- 
edged in  any  sense.  This  was  a  proposition  of  tremendous 
practical  issues.  It  really  involved  the  political  isolation  of 
the  nation;  for,  as  things  then  stood,  it  was  impossible  to 
have  friendship  and  alliance  with  other  peoples  if  their  gods 
were  proscribed  in  Israel's  land.  It  is  not  strange  that  Ahab, 
as  a  politician,  fought  with  all  his  might  against  such  a  view ; 
for  it  contained  more  than  the  germ  of  that  antagonism  be- 
tween Israel  and  all  the  rest  of  mankind  which  made  the  Jews 
appear  to  the  Roman  historian  as  the  enemies  of  the  human 
race,  and  brought  upon  them  an  unbroken  succession  of  po- 
litical misfortimes,  and  the  ultimate  loss  of  all  place  among 
the  nations  "  (p.  80).  "  From  the  point  of  view  of  national 
politics,  the  fall  of  Ahab  was  a  step  in  the  downfall  of  Israel. 
...  In  this  respect,  the  work  of  Elijah  foreshadows  that  of 
the  Prophets  of  Judah,  who  in  like  manner  had  no  small  part 
in  breaking  up  the  political  life  of  the  kingdom"  (p.  78). 

From  all  this  it  may  be  inferred  that  Ahab  was  a 
more  sagacious  statesman,  even  if  he  was  not  a  bet- 
ter man,  than  Elijah;  and,  while  religion  might  have 
suffered,  the  poHtical  prosperity  of  Israel  and  of  Ju- 
dah would  have  been  greater  if  Elijah  and  the 
Prophets  had  not  interfered  as  they  did.     It  was  not 


ON  THE   PROPHETS   OF  ISRAEL.  269 

without  reason,  then,  that  Ahab  accosted  the  Tishbitc 
as  the  Troubler  of  Israel  (i.  Kings  xviii.  17).  This 
Hbcl  upon  the  Prophets,  and  apolof^y  for  impious 
transgressors  and  persecutors,  which  is  continued 
ad  najiseam,  overlooks  the  cardinal  fact  that  virtue 
and  piety,  and  the  blessing  of  Jehovah,  are  the  true 
foundations  of  national  welfare.  It  was  the  loss  of 
these,  far  more  than  the  want  of  foreign  alliances  or 
even  the  encroachments  of  the  great  empires,  which 
led  to  Israel's  downfall. 

Elijah's  ministry  was  exercised  in  a  great  crisis. 
The  idolatrous  worship  of  Jehovah  established  by 
Jeroboam  was  not  enough  for  Ahab ;  he  openly  in- 
troduced the  worship  of  Baal,  and  sought  to  make  it 
the  religion  of  the  state  (l.  Kings  xvi.  31-33).  It 
may  be  true  that  he  did  not  intend  to  give  up  the 
service  of  Jehovah  (p.  48)  as  this  was  represented 
by  the  golden  calves ;  but  the  Lord's  altars  were 
thrown  down,  and  His  true  Prophets  slain  with  the 
sword  (xix.  14),  or  forced  to  hide  themselves  in  caves 
(xviii.  13).  In  this  state  of  things,  when  the  alter- 
native was  between  Jehovah  and  Baal,  rather  than  be- 
tween the  pure  and  the  corrupted  service  of  Jehovah, 
it  need  not  surprise  us  if  the  golden  calves  are  not 
more  directly  and  pointedly  alluded  to.  If  some 
one  were  to  place  in  our  hands  a  plea  for  the  Chris- 
tian religion,  issued  when  Atheism  and  ungodliness 
were  rampant  in  the  French  Revolution,  would  it  ever 
enter  our  minds  to  charge  its  author  with  "  indiffer- 
ence "  to  the  various  corruptions  which  have  defaced 
Christianity,  because  these  were  not  discussed  in  the 


270  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

pamphlet?  Elijah  shows  plainly  enough  where  he 
stood,  and  to  what  he  would  recall  the  people.  He 
never  said  or  did  anything  which  can  be  tortured  into 
approval  of  the  golden  calves.  He  never  sacrificed 
before  them  himself,  nor  urged  others  to  do  so.  His 
one  great  sacrifice,  designed  to  demonstrate  to  the 
people  of  the  Ten  Tribes  the  deity  of  Jehovah,  was 
offered,  not  at  BetheP  nor  at  Dan,  but  at  Carmel. 
(See  above,  p.  164.)  He  addressed  Jehovah  as  "  the 
God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  of  Israel "  (i.  Kings 
xviii.  36).  Now  we  are  told  (p.  117)  that  the  narra- 
tives of  the  Patriarchs,  as  we  possess  them,  are  for 
the  most  part,  gathered  about  the  "  Northern  sanc- 
tuaries," and  were  there  constantly  rehearsed.  They 
must  therefore  correctly  represent  the  ideas  which 
Elijah  and  his  countrymen  had  of  their  ancestors, 
and  of  the  great  object  of  their  worship.  From  them 
we  learn  that  Jehovah  was  to  the  Patriarchs  ''  the 
Most  High  God,  the  possessor  of  heaven  and  earth  " 
(Gen.  xiv.  22,  xxiv.  3),  the  almighty  (xvii.  i)  and 
everlasting  God  (xxi.  33),  who  has  all  nature  under 
His  control  (xlix.  25),  whose  dwelling  is  in  heaven 
(xix.  24,   xxviii.  12,  13),  who,  when  He  manifested 

1  We  subjoin  here  some  characteristic  specimens  of  Wellhausen's 
fairness  in  statement.  He  speaks  (Bleek's  Einleitung,  p.  246)  of 
Elijah  as  fleeing  for  his  life  "  to  the  ancient  sanctuary  of  Beersheba, 
in  southern  Judah,  which  was  much  frequented  likewise  by  Israel," 
because  he  left  his  servant  at  that  most  southern  point  of  the  coun- 
try, on  his  way  to  Sinai  (i.  Kings  xix.  3  ff.).  Again  (p.  245),  "he  was 
nourished  by  a  widow,  in  the  very  land  of  Baal,  thus  showing  not 
the  least  hatred  to  heathenism  in  itself."  How  far  he  sanctioned 
heathenism  by  that  visit  appears  from  xvii.  12,  14,  24. 


ON   THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL.  27  I 

Himself  on  earth,  appeared  in  human  r(3rm  (xviii. 
1,2,  xxxii.  24,  30),  and  who  was  worshipped  with- 
out any  idolatrous  symbols  (xxxv.  2  ;  comp.  xxxi. 
19,30). 

Jehovah  was  to  Elijah  not  only  supreme  but  exclu- 
sive in  his  godhead  (l.  Kings  xviii.  21,  24).  It  is 
not  merely  that  "  there  was  no  room  for  tvvo  gods  in 
the  land"  (p.  ^6).  Elijah  makes  no  such  limitation; 
to  his  mind  there  could  be  but  one  God  in  existence. 
Such  a  conception  of  God  does  not  consist  with 
image-worship,  which  is,  moreover,  confirmed  by  his 
ridicule  of  the  senselessness  and  vanity  of  idolatry 
(ver.  27).  The  twelve  stones  of  the  altar  (ver.  31) 
show  that  he  did  not  recognize  the  rightfulness  of 
the  schism,  nor,  consequently,  of  the  apostasy  to  the 
worship  of  the  calves,  which  was  one  of  its  direst 
fruits.  But  he  utters  his  mind  in  a  more  direct  and 
positive  manner,  when  he  declares  to  Ahab,  in  the 
name  of  Jehovah,  ''  I  will  make  thine  house  like  the 
house  of  Jeroboam,  the  son  of  Nebat,  and  like 
the  house  of  Baasha,  the  son  of  Ahijah."  The 
wdiole  passage  (xxi.  21-24)  is  a  manifest  repetition 
of  the  language  of  preceding  Prophets  (  xiv.  10,  11, 
xvi.  2-4),  and  the  reference  to  the  crime  of  the  golden 
calves  is  unmistakable.  They  are  classed  along  with 
serving  Baal,  as  similarly  offensive  to  Jehovah,  and 
incurring  a  similar  doom.  It  is  confessed  in  these 
Lectures  (p.  99)  that  Hosea  ii.  5,  S,  13  means  by 
Baalim  "  the  local  manifestations  of  Jehovah  under 
the  form  of  the  golden  calves."  Ahijah  expressly 
calls  them  "  other  gods  "  (l.  Kings   xiv.  9).     We  are 


272  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

accordingly  justified  in  assuming,  that,  when  Ehjah 
charges  both  Ahab  and  his  father's  house  (xviii.  18) 
with  having  "  forsaken  the  commandments  of  the 
Lord  and  follow^ed  BaaHm,"  he  combines  Ahab's 
service  of  Baal  and  Omri's  service  of  the  golden 
calves  (xvi.  25,  26)  under  a  common  name.^  The 
image  worship  nominally  paid  to  Jehovah  is  an 
offence  of  like  character  with  the  open  and  declared 
worship  of  Baal,  and  finds  in  this  its  culmination. 
To  the  Prophet  these  are  different  grades  of  the 
same  criminality,  and,  in  standing  up  for  Jehovah 
against  Baal,  he  sets  the  pure  worship  of  the  one 
true  God  against  them  both  alike. 

In  answer  to  Elijah's  complaint  against  Israel  the 
Lord  directs  him  among  other  things  (l.  Kings  xix.  1 5  ) 
to  anoint  Hazael  to  be  king  over  Syria,  that  his  sword 
may  inflict  deserved  punishment.  Elisha  subse- 
quently fulfils  this  commission  (ll.  Kings  viii.  12,  13) 
and  Hazael  executes  the  appointed  vengeance,  but  not 
until  the  reigns  of  Jehu  and  Jehoahaz  (x.  32,  xiii.  3, 22), 
after  the  worship  of  Baal  had  been  abolished  and  that  of 
the  calves  re-established.  Elijah  therefore  foretells  a 
penalty  to  be  inflicted  on  the  w^orshippers  of  the 
golden  calves ;  and  this  is  in  direct  response  to  his 
arraignment  of  Israel  for  having  forsaken  the  cove- 
nant of  Jehovah.  This  conclusion  cannot  be  evaded 
even  by  the  desperate  expedient  of  assuming  a  vati- 
ciiimm  ex  eventii ;    for  the  narrative,  which  puts  this 

1  This  is  still  the  case  if  "  thou,"  in  this  verse,  is  restricted  to  Ahab 
alone  ;  for  his  father's  house,  which  worshipped  the  calves,  is  involved 
with  him  in  "  forsaking  the  commandments  of  the  Lord." 


ON  THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL.  273 

prophecy  in  the  mouth  of  Ehjah,  is  not  from  the 
fault-finding  "  Jud.ean  editor"  but  "clearly  took 
shape  in  the  Northern  Kingdom"  (p.  116).  It  is 
correctly  conceived  therefore  in  the  spirit  of  IClijah. 
And  we  are  at  liberty  to  conclude  that  it  would  have 
been  quite  in  character  for  him  to  regard  Hazael's 
invasion  of  Israel  as  a  proper  penalty  for  their  for- 
saking Jehovah's  covenant,  though  their  adoration 
was  paid  not  to  Baal  but  to  the  golden  calves. 

The  significance  of  Elijah's  journey  of  forty  days  and 
forty  nights  unto  Horeb,  the  Mount  of  God  (l.  Kings 
xix.  8),  is  acknowledged  in  the  Lectures  (p.  83). 

"  It  is  highly  characteristic,  for  his  whole  standing,  that  in 
the  greatest  danger  of  his  life,  when  the  victory  of  Jehovah 
on  Mount  Carmel  seemed  to  be  all  in  vain,  he  retired  to  the 
desert  of  Sinai,  to  the  ancient  mountain  of  God.  It  was  the 
God  of  the  Exodus  to  whom  he  appealed,  the  ancient  King 
of  Israel  in  the  journeyings  through  the  Wilderness."  "  The 
God  whom  he  declared  to  Israel  was  the  God  of  Moses." 

It  might  be  supposed  from  this  that  some  satis- 
factory statement  was  about  to  be  made  respecting 
the  conception  of  Jehovah,  w^iich  this  transaction 
involved.  And  we  experience  something  like  the 
sensation  of  suddenly  dropping  down  from  the 
sublime  to  the  trivial,  when  we  find  that  all  this  pre- 
lude has  no  further  meaning  than  that  Elijah,  as  a 
native  of  Gilead,  had  a  proclivity  for  "  the  old  no- 
madic life  of  the  age  of  Moses,"  and  was  akin  to  the 
Nazaritcs,  whose  '*  vow  to  abstain  from  wine  .  .  . 
was  undoubtedly  a  religious  protest  against  Canaan- 

18 


2  74  ^^'  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

ite  civilization   in  favor  of  the  simple  life  of  ancient 
times." 

We  press  the  question,  however:  What  notions 
were  entertained  of  the  God  of  Moses,  whom  Elijah 
by  this  significant  action  so  plainly  declares  to  be 
his  God  likewise?  A  few  quotations  will  show  us  the 
point  of  view  from  which  this  question  is  regarded 
by  Dr.  Robertson  Smith.  He  tells  us  (p.  70)  that 
the  difference  between  Jehovah  and  other  gods 

"  was  not  defined  once  for  all  in  a  theological  dogma,  but 
made  itself  felt  in  the  attitude  which  Jehovah  actually  took  up 
towards  Israel  in  historical  dealings  with  His  nation." 

"  The  current  ideas  of  the  Hebrews  about  unseen  things 
were  mainly  the  common  stock  of  the  Semitic  peoples,  and 
nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  neither  Moses  nor  Samuel 
gave  Israel  any  new  system  of  metaphysical  theology.  In 
matters  of  thought  as  well  as  of  practice,  the  new  revelation 
of  Jehovah's  power  and  love,  given  through  Moses,  or  rather 
given  in  actual  saving  deeds  of  Jehovah  which  Moses  taught 
the  people  to  understand,  involved  no  sudden  and  absolute 
break  with  the  past,  or  with  the  traditions  of  the  past  com- 
mon to  Israel  with  kindred  nations.  Its  epoch-making  im- 
portance lay  in  quite  another  direction  —  in  the  introduction 
into  Israel's  historical  life  of  a  new  personal  factor  —  of 
Jehovah  Himself  as  the  God  of  Israel's  salvation.  ...  It 
was  from  this  personal  experience  of  Jehovah's  character, 
read  in  the  actual  history  of  His  dealings  with  His  peo- 
ple, that  the  great  teachers  of  Israel  learned,  but  learned 
by  slow  degrees,  to  lay  down  general  proposidons  about 
divine  things.  To  suppose  that  the  Old  Testament  history 
began  with  a  full  scheme  of  doctrine,  which  the  history  only 
served  to  illustrate  and  enforce,  is  to  invert  the  most  general 


ON  THE  PROPHETS   OF  ISP  A  EL.  275 

law  of  God's  dealings  with  man,  whether  in  the  way  of 
nature  or  of  grace"  (p.  58),  ''General  propositions  about 
divine  things  are  not  the  basis  but  the  outcome  of  such 
personal  knowledge  of  Jehovah,  just  as  in  ordinary  human 
life  a  general  view  of  a  man's  character  must  be  formed  by 
observation  of  his  attitude  and  action  in  a  variety  of  si)ecial 
circumstances  "  (p.  82). 

There  is  much  in  all  this  that  is  true  and  vastly  im- 
portant. Only  God's  revelation  is  arbitrarily  limited 
to  His  manifestation  of  Himself  in  history,  which 
men  are  to  interpret  with  more  or  less  divine  assist- 
ance;  while  His  direct  and  positive  communications 
in  matters  of  faith  and  duty  are  altogether  over- 
looked. The  principles  above  stated  are  applied  to 
the  age  of  Moses  with  the  following  result,  —  all 
preceding  revelations  made  to  the  Patriarchs  being 
peremptorily  set  aside  :  — 

"  It  would  seem  that  the  memory  of  the  God  of  the  Hebrew 
fathers  was  litde  more  than  a  dormant  tradition  ^  when  Moses 

1  And  yet  the  Doctor  admits  but  a  few  Hnes  before  that  he  has 
no  certainty  on  this  point :  "  It  is  not  easy  to  say  how  far  the  remem- 
brance of  this  God  was  a  living  power  among  the  Hebrews."  But 
then  *'  historical  investigation  "  has  made  sad  havoc  of  the  patriarchal 
narratives,  many  of  which,  we  are  told  (p.  166),  "  there  are  the  very 
strongest  reasons  for  regarding  as  allegories  of  historical  events  sub- 
sequent to  the  settlement  of  the  Hebrews  in  Canaan."  So  without 
further  hesitation  he  sets  them  down  as  on  the  same  level  with  their 
heathen  neighbors  of  the  same  ancestral  stock.  "The  Semitic  nomads 
have  many  superstitions,  but  little  religion."  "Among  the  Israelites, 
as  among  the  Arabs  of  the  desert,  whatever  there  was  of  habitual 
religious  practice  was  probably  connected  with  tribal  or  family  super- 
stitions, such  as  the  use  of  teraphim,  a  kind  of  household  idols  which 
long  continued  to  keep  their  place  in  Hebrew  homes."  No  doubt  idol- 
atry was  practised  to  some  extent  by  Israelites  in  Egypt  (Josh.  xxiv. 


276  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

began  his  work  "  (p.  ^iZ)  •  When  Jehovah  delivered  them  from 
the  oppression  of  Egypt,  "the  new  circumstances  of  Israel 
.  .  .  created  a  multitude  of  new  questions.  On  these  Moses 
had  to  decide,  and  he  sought  the  decision  from  Jehovah, 
whose  Ark  now  led  the  march  of  Israel"  (p.  ^6).  From 
these  solitary  facts  the  lecturer  deduces  (p.  40)  "  the  essen- 
tial difference  between  Jehovah  and  the  Baalim,  which  had 
to  be  preserved  amidst  all  changes  of  circumstances  if  Je- 
hovah was  still  to  maintain  his  individuality.  In  the  first 
place  .  .  .  Jehovah  represented  a  principle  of  national  unity, 
while  the  worship  of  the  Baalim  was  spKt  into  a  multitude  of 
local  cults  without   national  significance."  ^     Further,   "Je- 

14 ;  Ezek.  xx.  7,  8,  xxiii.  3) ;  but  it  is  an  incredible  assumption  that 
there  was  no  true  piety  surviving  among  them,  and  that  all  correct 
knowledge  of  God  had  been  obliterated  or  lost.  And  as  to  the  con- 
nection of  the  teraphim  with  Hebrew  homes,  the  evidence  is  scanty 
and  exceptional.  Rachel  stole  her  father's  teraphim,  but  without 
Jacob's  privity  (Gen.  xxxi.  19,  32) ;  and  he  required  his  household  to 
put  away  everything  of  the  kind  (xxxv.  2).  Michal,  Saul's  daughter, 
had  teraphim  in  her  house  (i.  Sam.  xix.  16) ;  but  in  what  esteem  they 
were  held  appears  from  Samuel's  classing  teraphim  with  witchcraft 
and  rebellion  (xv.  23) ;  and  in  every  remaining  passage  in  which 
teraphim  are  spoken  of,  they  are  associated  with  open  and  confessed 
idolatry.  Possibly  there  may  be  a  few  persons  in  Scotland  who  have 
a  superstitious  belief  in  witches ;  but  what  would  be  thought  of  a 
man  who  should  gravely  adduce  this  as  a  fact  reflecting  the  general 
religious  condition  of  that  country,  or  as  indicating  the  amount  of 
religious  knowledge  possessed  by  the  people  ? 

1  If  this  be  so  we  submit  that,  upon  the  Doctor's  own  showing,  it 
is  naturally  to  be  expected  that  Moses  would  issue  just  such  a  com- 
mand as  that  in  Ueut.  xii.  5.  Later  events  may  have  interfered  with 
its  strict  observance.  But  if  "  the  religion  of  Jehovah  .  .  .  lost  the 
best  part  of  its  original  meaning  when  divorced  from  the  idea  of  na- 
tional unity"  (p.  47),  it  would  have  been  an  unaccountable  oversight 
in  Moses  not  to  have  enjoined  the  perpetuation  of  that  unity  of  the 
Sanctuary  which  was  so  essential,  and  which  it  is  confessed  was  main- 
tained in  the  Wilderness  and  during  the  Conquest. 


ON  THE   PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL.  277 

hovah  represented  to  Israel  two  of  the  greatest  blessings  that 
any  people  can  enjoy.  .  .  .  The  first  of  these  was  /ihcrfy,  for 
it  was  Jehovah  that  brought  Israel  forth  from  the  house  of 
bondage ;  the  second  was  laiv,  justice,  and  the  moral  order 
of  society,  for  from  the  days  of  Moses  the  mouth  of  Jeho- 
vah was  the  one  fountain  of  judgment.  So  in  the  Ten  Words, 
the  fundamental  document  of  the  religion  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, the  claim  of  Jehovah  to  the  exclusive  worship  of  Israel 
is  based  on  the  deliverance  that  made  Israel  a  free  people, 
and  issues  in  the  great  laws  of  social  morality." 

But  if  the  Ten  Words  arc  Mosaic,  and  may  be 
taken  into  the  account  in  estimating  the  knowledge  of 
God  which  was  then  possessed,  they  imply  a  concep- 
tion of  Him  vastly  beyond  the  meagre  and  purely 
political  ideas  suggested  in  these  Lectures.  Dr.  Rob- 
ertson Smith  does  not  tell  us  just  what  he  thinks  of 
the  Ten  Words.  From  the  manner  in  which  they  arc 
here  referred  to,  it  might  be  taken  for  granted  that  he 
ascribed  them  to  the  period  of  the  Exodus.^    But  the 

1  "  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church  "  (p.  331)  seems  to  im- 
pute the  writing  of  the  Ten  Words  to  Moses,  and  (p.  334)  plainly 
fixes  them  in  the  life  of  the  great  legislator.  The  Doctor  there  says: 
"  The  events  of  Sinai,  and  the  establishment  of  the  covenant  on  the 
basis  of  the  Ten  Words,  did  not  cut  short  this  kind  of  Torah,"  /.  e. 
Moses'  judging  "his  contemporaries  by  bringing  individual  hard 
cases  before  Jehovah  for  decision."  This  can  only  be  reconciled  with 
what  he  represents  to  be  the  Mosaic  idea  of  God  by  assuming  that 
the  Ten  Words  of  Moses  were  very  different  from  the  Ten  Command- 
ments as  we  now  possess  them.     But  of  this  he  gives  us  no  hint. 

And  there  are  other  cases  in  which  we  are  left  in  some  uncertainty 
as  to  the  Doctor's  precise  meaning.  Thus  in  the  volume  before  us 
(p.  34)  he  speaks  of  Jehovah  as  having  "  wrought  the  great  deliver- 
ance at  the  Red  Sea;  "  and  he  finds  in  the  Exodus  "a  marvellous  dis- 
play of  Jehovah's  saving  strength  .  .  .  when  the  proud  waters  rolled 


278  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

contents  of  the  first  table  are  strangely  overlooked. 
And  he  seems  quite  oblivious  of  any  connection  be- 
tween Mount  Sinai  and  the  giving  of  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments. God's  "  kingly  seat  on  earth  "  he  tells 
us  (p.  34)  was  by  ''  an  ancient  tradition  placed  on 
Mount  Sinai,  which  still  appears  in  the  Song  of  Deb- 
orah as  the  place  from  which  the  divine  majesty  goes 
forth  in  thunder-storm  and  rain  to  bring  victory  to 
Israel;  "  and   (p.  43)  *' in  the  Song  of  Deborah,  Je- 

between  the  Hebrews  and  the  shattered  power  of  the  Egyptians." 
We  would  never  have  dreamed  that  this  could  mean  less  than  the  mir- 
aculous interference  which  this  transaction  has  always  denoted  to  the 
great  mass  of  the  readers  of  Scripture,  were  it  not  that  in  the  very 
same  connection  the  Lord's  descent  upon  Sinai  is  frittered  away  to  a 
thunder-storm ;  and  in  all  the  discussion  about  Elijah  the  supernatural 
events  in  his  life  are  not  once  alluded  to.  The  Doctor  is  ordinarily 
so  frank  in  the  statement  of  his  views,  even  the  most  startling,  that 
we  can  imagine  no  motive  for  concealment  here,  much  less  for  the  em- 
ployment of  misleading  phrases.  Perhaps  we  do  him  injustice  by  the 
suggestion,  but  this  unwonted  reticence  inclines  us  to  suspect  some 
remaining  hesitation  in  his  own  mind  respecting  the  ultimate  issue  of 
"  historical  investigation  "  into  these  matters,  and  a  disinclination  to 
drift  altogether  away  from  long-cherished  traditional  opinions  until 
the  last  strand  of  the  cable  is  parted. 

Wellhausen,  however,  has  no  hesitation  on  this  point.  We  quote 
from  his  article  "  Israel,"  in  the  Encyclopcsdia  Britannica,  (vol.  xiii.  p. 
397),  in  which  he  says  of  Moses  and  the  Exodus :  "  It  was  not  through 
any  merit  of  his  that  the  undertaking  (of  which  he  was  the  soul)  pros- 
pered as  it  did  ;  his  design  was  aided  in  a  wholly  unlooked-for  way,  by 
a  marvellous  occurrence  quite  beyond  his  control,  and  which  no  saga- 
city could  possibly  have  foreseen.  One  whom  the  wind  and  sea  obeyed 
had  given  him  His  aid.  Behind  him  stood  One  higher  than  he,  whose 
spirit  wrought  in  him  and  whose  arm  wrought  for  him.  ...  It  was 
Jehovah.  Alike  what  was  done  by  the  deliberate  purpose  of  Moses 
and  what  was  done  without  any  human  contrivance  by  nature  and  by 
accident  came  to  be  regarded  in  one  great  totality  as  the  doing  of 
Jehovah  for  Israel.'' 


ON   THE   PROPHETS   OE  ISRAEL.  279 

hovah  has  not  yet  a  fixed  seat  in  the  kind  of  Canaan, 
but  goes  forth  from  Sinai  to  help  I  lis  people  in  their 
distress."  It  might  with  precisely  the  same  propriety 
be  inferred  from  Hab.  iii.  3,  that  Jehcjvah  had  not  a 
fixed  seat  in  Canaan  down  to  the  time  of  Ilabakkuk, 
but  still  came  forth  from  the  desert  for  the  succor  of 
His  people.  All  the  sacredness  of  Sinai  is  in  conse- 
quence of  the  revelations  which  Jehovah  there  made 
of  Himself  to  Moses  (Ex.  iii.  2)  and  to  Israel.  No 
trace  is  to  be  found  of  any  prior  hallowing  of  the 
place,  or  of  its  being  hallowed  for  any  other  reason. 
In  the  narrative  of  the  first  of  the  divine  manifesta- 
tions granted  there,  Horeb  is  called  "the  mountain  of 
God"  (Ex.  iii.  i  ;  comp.  iv.  27)  by  anticipation;  just 
as  Eben-ezer  is  spoken  of  (i.  Sam.  iv.  i)  before  it  re- 
ceived that  name  (vii.  12),  or  as  we  might  say  that 
the  Indians  wandered  along  the  Hudson  or  over 
Mount  Washington  before  America  was  visited  by 
Europeans. 

Every  allusion  to  Sinai  or  to  Horeb  in  the  Old 
Testament  is  linked  with  the  marvellous  occurrences 
recorded  at  length  in  Ex.  xix.,  xx.,  and  is  a  fresh  con- 
firmation of  their  truth.  The  Song  of  Deborah  cele- 
brates the  victory  over  Sisera  by  Him  who  once  met 
Israel  at  Sinai  with  cloud  and  tempest,  while  the 
earth  trembled  and  the  mountain  shook  (Judg.  v. 
4,  5  ;  comp.  Ps.  Ixviii.  8,  17).  The  blessing  of  Moses 
(Deut.  xxxiii.)  — though  its  genuineness  is  denied  in 
the  face  of  the  positive  declaration  in  ver.  i,  corrobo- 
rated as  this  is  by  internal  evidence  —  yet  "  shows  us 
better,"  we   are  told  (p.  118),  "than   any  other  jiarf 


28o  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

of  Scripture  how  thoughtful  and  godly  men  of  the 
Northern  Kingdom  understood  the  religion  of  Je- 
hovah." Confessedly,  then,  it  shows  us  the  behef 
entertained  by  Elijah  that  God  revealed  Himself  to 
Israel  at  Sinai,  in  brilliant  splendor,  and  there  gave 
them  His  Law  through  the  instrumentality  of  Moses 
(vers.  2-  5  ;  comp.  Hab.  iii.  3,  4;  Neh,  ix.  13  ;  Mai.  iv. 
4.)  And  the  Prophet's  visit  to  Horeb  was  not  merely 
to  some  traditional  seat  of  the  godhead,  but  to  the 
place  where  Jehovah  gave  His  Law  to  Israel  .in  awful 
magnificence,  and  where  He  established  that  covenant 
with  them  which  the  children  of  Israel  had  now  so 
basely  forsaken. 

Now  of  this  Law  —  that  in  actual  fact  and  in  the 
belief  of  Elijah  (which  is  the  point  of  especial  conse- 
quence to  us  just  now)  was  given  at  Sinai  —  the 
Decalogue  must  undoubtedly  have  been  a  part.  It  is 
the  Ten  Commandments  which  are  said  to  have  been 
spoken  by  the  mouth  of  God  amid  the  grand  dis- 
plays which  betokened  His  presence  on  the  moun- 
tain. And  the  Ark,  which  is  admitted  to  be  as  old 
as   the   time   of  Moses  ^  (pp.  36,  43),  contained    the 

1  Even  Wellhausen  owns  (article  "  Israel,"  Encyclopedia  Britannica, 
vol.  xiii.  p.  39S)  that  "  Jehovah's  chief,  perhaps  in  the  time  of 
Moses  His  only,  sanctuary  was  with  the  so-called  Ark  of  the  Cove- 
nant." So  Kuenen  ("  Religion  of  Israel,"  vol.  i.  p.  289) :  "  Scarcely 
any  tradition  of  Hebrew  antiquity  is  better  guaranteed  than  that  which 
derives  the  Ark  of  Jahveh  from  the  lawgiver  himself."  The  atrocious 
manner  in  which  the  latter  critic  is  capable  of  perverting  history  may 
be  illustrated  by  his  utterly  baseless  substitution  of  an  image  of  the' 
Deity,  or  a  fetich,  for  the  tables  of  the  law  (p.  233) :  "  Was  the  Ark 
empty,  or  did  it  contain  a  stone  —  Jahveh's  real  abode,  of  which  the  Ark 
was  only  the  repository.     This  we  do  not  know,  although  the  latter 


ON  THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL.  28  1 

tables  of  stone  on  which  the  Ten  Words  were  written 
(Ex.  xxxiv.  28,  xl.  20;  Deut.  x.  4,  5  ;  i.  Kings  viii.  9, 
21),  and  was  hence  called  the  Ark  of  the  Testimony 
(Ex.  XXV.  21,  22)  and  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant 
(Judg.  XX.  27).  The  existence  of  this  Ark  is  a  pal- 
pable evidence,  which  cannot  be  set  aside,  of  the  an- 
tiquity of  the  commandments  inscribed  on  these 
tables.  If  anything  whatever  is  known  of  the  Mosaic 
age,  it  is  certainly  known  that  the  Ten  Command- 
ments were  given  then.  There  is  nothing  more  surely 
accredited  than  this,  whether  by  historical  testimony 
or  by  monumental  evidence. 

Wellhausen,  however,  is  keen-sighted  enough  to 
perceive  that  if  the  antiquity  of  the  Ten  Command- 
ments is  allowed,  his  whole  critical  hypothesis  is  un- 
dermined. "If,"  he  says  (article  "  Israel "  p.  399), 
**  the  legislation  of  the  Pentateuch  cease  as  a  whole  to 
be  regarded  as  an  authentic  source  for  our  knowledge 
of  what  Mosaism  was,  it  becomes  a  somewhat  preca- 
rious matter  to  make  any  exception  in  favor  of  the 
Decalogue."  He  accordingly  urges  the  four  follow- 
ing arguments  against  its  authenticity.^ 

opinion,  in  connection  with  the  later  accounts  of  the  i'cntateuch,  ap- 
pears to  us  to  possess  great  probability." 

1  Kuenen,  on  the  other  hand,  admits  the  authenticity  of  "  the  Ten 
Words  as  a  whole,"  but  saves  himself  by  arbitrarily  rejectinj^  as  much 
of  each  individual  commandment  as  he  sees  fit.  "  The  tradition  which 
ascribes  them  to  Moses  is  worthy  of  respect  on  account  of  its  undis- 
puted antiquitv.  Nevertheless,  if  it  were  contradicted  by  the  contents 
and  form  of  the  Words  we  should  have  to  reject  it.  lUit  this  is  not 
the  case.  Therefore  we  accept  it.  Reserving  our  right  to  subject  each 
separate  commandment  to  special  criticism,  and,  if  necessary,  to  deny 
its  Mosaic  origin,  we  acknowledge  it  as  a  fact  that  Moses,  in  the  name 


282  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

'^  (i)  According  to  Ex.  xxxiv.  the  commandments  which 
stood  upon  the  two  tables  were  quite  different." 

The  ingenious  conceit  was  first  suggested  by 
Goethe,  that  the  laws  of  Ex.  xxxiv.  are  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments according  to  a  different  tradition  from 
that  followed  in  Ex.  xx.  and  Deut.  v.  It  rests  upon 
the  assumption  that  the  last  clause  in  ver.  28  re- 
cords the  fulfilment  of  the  direction  given  ver.  27 
to  Moses  to  write  the  words  which  precede,  and 
which  are  alleged  to  be  just  ten  laws,  and  hence 
identical  with  the  commandments  written  upon  the 
tables.^  Its  falsity  appears  from  ver.  i,  which  shows 
that  Jehovah,  and  not  Moses,^  wrote  upon  the 
,tables,  and  that  He  wrote  not  the  words  now  spoken 
but  those  that  were  in  the  first  tables,  which  Moses 
had  broken.  This  is  a  plain  allusion  to  the  preced- 
ing narrative  (Ex.  xxxii.  19)  of  the  sin  of  the  golden 
calf  and  the  consequent  rupture  of  the  covenant 
so  lately  formed  between  Jehovah  and  Israel,  which 
is  further  implied  in  the  second  pair  of  tables 
(xxxiv.  4),  in  the  divine  mercy  and  forgiveness  em- 
phasized in  vers.  6,  7,  in  Moses'   supplication  (ver. 

of  Jahveh,  prescribed  to  the  Israelitish  tribes  such  a  law  as  is  con- 
tained in  the  Ten  Words."     "  Religion  of  Israel,"  vol.  i.  p.  285. 

1  In  identifying  the  words  which  Moses  is  here  directed  to  write 
with  the  Ten  Commandments  ("  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish 
Church,"  p.  331)  Dr.  Robertson  Smith  appears  to  give  his  sanction  to 
the  extraordinary  hypothesis  now  under  consideration.  But  he  does 
not  openly  avow  it.     See  above,  p.  52. 

2  The  change  of  subject  in  ver.  28  cannot  occasion  the  slightest 
embarrassment.  It  is  of  constant  occurrence  in  Hebrew  construc- 
tion, where  it  would  be  readily  understood  by  the  reader  or  hearer. 
Comp.  Gen.  xxiv.  32 ;  ii.  Sam.  xi.  13. 


ON  THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL.  283 

9),  and  in  Jehovah's  engaging  to  make  the  desired 
covenant  (ver.  10).  The  words  vers,  i  r  -26,  accord- 
ing to  the  tenor  of  which  God  proposes  to  make  this 
covenant,  and  which  Moses  is  told  to  write,  are  taken 
substantially  and  in  part  verbatim  from  "  the  words  of 
the  Lord  "  which  Moses  wrote  at  the  original  ratifi- 
cation of  the  covenant  (xxiii.  12  ff.).  The  selection  is 
made  with  definite  reference  to  the  great  crime  just 
committed.  As  they  had  offended  in  the  matter  of 
worship,  the  injunction  is  repeated  of  the  service  to 
be  paid  to  Jehovah  and  to  Him  exclusively.  They 
had  forfeited  all  claim  upon  His  promise  to  expel  the 
the  Canaanites ;  accordingly  this  is  repeated  likewise. 
While  Moses  was  to  rewrite  this  portion  of  the  orig- 
inal engagement,  which  had  been  particularly  in- 
fringed, thus  impliedly  giving  fresh  sanction  to  the 
whole  as  the  representative  of  the  people  on  whose 
behalf  he  had  been  interceding,  the  LoRi)  once  more 
engraved  in  stone  the  same  Ten  Words  which  he  had 
uttered  from  Sinai  in  the  audience  of  the  people, 
thus  re-enacting  on  His  part  His  imperishable  cove- 
nant.^ 

1  WJiile  the  entire  narrative  in  Ex.  xix.-xxxiv.  is  continuous  and 
consistent  and  intimately  related  in  all  its  parts,  Wellhauscn  ("  Jahr- 
biicher  fiir  Deutsche  Theologie,"  pp.  564  ff.)  discovers  in  it  three  en- 
tirely distinct  and  divergent  accounts  of  the  Sinaitic  legislation.  lie 
assigns  to  the  first,  or  Elohistic  account,  xix.  3-19,  x.x.  1-20,  .xxiv.  12- 
14,  xxxi  18,  xxxii.,  xxxiii.  i-ii ;  Num.  x.  1},.  According  to  this  writer 
the  covenant  was  ratified  and  the  people  pledged  obedience  before  the 
Law  was  given  (Ex.  xix.  3-8).  In  majestic  grandeur  Clod  proclaims 
the  Ten  Commandments,  which  completes  the  Sinaitic  legislation 
proper.  The  terrified  people  ask  that  Moses  may  speak  to  them  in- 
stead of  God.  Moses  is  accordingly  summoned  into  the  mountain  to 
receive  the  Decalogue  written  by  God  on  tables  of  stone,  and  to  spend 


284  ^^-  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

And  while  the  critics,  who  claim  that  a  variant  ver- 
sion of  the  Decalogue  is  to   be  found  in  Ex.  xxxiv, 

forty  days  in  intimate  converse  with  God.  This  is  not  that  He  may 
give  him  specific  commands  to  report  to  the  people  as  in  xxi.-xxiii., 
of  which  this  writer  knows  nothing,  but  that  Moses  may  be  so  filled 
with  divine  wisdom  as  to  be  fitted  to  be  God's  oracle  to  the  people 
ever  after.  Then  follows  the  affair  of  the  golden  calf,  whereupon 
Moses  breaks  the  tables  of  the  law,  and  the  Lord  refuses  to  suffer 
the  transgressing  people  to  remain  longer  near  His  sacred  seat  on 
Sinai.  They  had  previously  had  no  other  idea  than  that  they  should 
remain  there  forever  (the  last  clause  of  xxxiii.  i  and  the  first  clause 
of  ver.  3  are  reckoned  interpolations).  The  people  are  distressed  by 
the  imwelcome  intelligence  that  they  must  leave  the  holy  mountain. 
The  Lord  is,  however,  so  far  mollified  by  the  people's  penitence  that 
He  gives  them  for  their  guidance  the  Tabernacle,  and,  though  it  is  not 
in  the  present  text,  the  Ark  likewise,  containing  the  broken  tables  of 
the  law.     The  people  then  begin  their  march  from  Sinai. 

To  the  Jehovistic  account  he  assigns  xix.  20-25,  xx.  21,  24-26,  xxi.- 
xxiii.,  xxiv.  3-8,  xxxiii.  i.  In  this  God  speaks  nothing  directly,  but 
Moses  goes  alqne  to  the  mountain  and  receives  from  God  His  words 
and  judgments,  which  he  records,  and  the  covenant  is  solemnly  rati- 
fied. This  completes  the  purpose  for  which  they  had  come  to  Sinai ; 
and  without  any  extraordinary  event  requiring  it  they  leave  for 
Canaan. 

The  third  account,  which  difEers  materially  from  both  the  preced- 
ing, is  found  in  Ex.  xxxiv.  The  first  verse  of  this  chapter  is  corrected 
by  omitting  all  after  the  words  "tables  of  stone."  This,  as  well  as 
the  words  "like  unto  the  first"  (ver.  4),  has  been  inserted  for  the 
sake  of  linking  this  narrative  with  the  preceding.  Such  manifest 
allusions  to  previous  portions  of  the  record  used  to  be  regarded  as 
proofs  of  continuity  in  the  history,  if  not  of  identity  of  authorship. 
But  the  critics  have  changed  all  that.  They  are  now  unhesitatingly 
traced  to  some  editor  intent  upon  "  harmonizing  "  discrepant  or  in- 
dependent narratives,  and  are  summarily  ejected  from  the  text.  In 
vers.  6-9  the  reference  to  the  transgression  of  the  people  "  betrays 
the  hand  of  the  harmonist,"  again  a  conclusive  argument  of  interpola- 
tion, which  is  here  fortified  by  the  carping  criticisms  that  "the  Lord 
passed  by  "  (ver.  6)  is  inconsistent  with  "  the  Lord  stood  "  (ver.  5), 
that  ver.  10  is  not  an  exact  response  to  the  petition  in  ver.  9,  and  that 
these  verses  mistake  the  meaning  of  ver.  5,  where  it  is  really  Mose? 


ON  THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL.  28 q 

are  unanimous  in  affirming  that  this  chapter  contains 
just    ten    commandments,    they   are    not    altogether 

who  proclaimed  the  name  of  the  Lord.  This  allegation,  for  tlie  sake 
of  creating  a  fresh  inconsistency  wherever  that  is  possible,  is  an  effect- 
ual estoppel  against  all  objection  to  assuming  a  like  change  of  subject 
in  ver.  28,  where  consistency  requires  it.  Verses  10-13  ^re  traced  in 
great  part  to  the  same  interpolaters,  vers.  12,  13  being  particularly 
obnoxious  as  squinting  towards  the  unity  of  the  sanctuary  in  the 
sense  of  the  book  of  Deuteronomy.  The  Decalogue  (vers.  14-26)  "  in 
its  present  expanded  form  only  shows  obscurely  the  decenary  number, 
which  once  certainly  was  plainly  to  be  recognized."  Then  the  account 
of  the  ratification  of  the  covenant  by  Moses  as  the  representative  of 
Israel,  which  the  chapter  must  once  have  contained,  has  been  omitted, 
as  well  as  the  conclusion  following  ver.  28,  "  for  vers.  29-35  ^^^  not 
the  continuation  of  what  precedes." 

With  the  chapter  thus  purged  of  all  objectionable  matter,  and  of 
all  that  he  is  pleased  to  consider  spurious,  Wellhausen  has  no  diffi- 
culty in  making  of  it  a  distinct  tradition  of  the  original  promulgation 
of  the  Law,  with  its  "  two  tables.  Ten  Words,  and  forty  days. 
Only  the  tables  are  written  not  by  God  but  by  Moses,  and  .  .  .  they 
contain  what  Jehovah  spake  to  Moses,  not  to  tlie  people."  There  is 
also  this  marked  contrast  between  Ex.  xx.  and  Ex.  xxxiv. :  "  in  the 
former  the  commandments  are  almost  all  moral ;  in  the  latter  they  arc 
exclusively  ritual." 

All  this  is  wonderfully  ingenious  ;  and  as  a  piece  of  literary  jugglery 
it  shows  amazing  dexterity  and  is  vastly  entertaining.  But  if  seri- 
ously proposed  as  sober  exposition  and  "  historical  investigation  "  it 
is  to  the  last  degree  preposterous  and  absurd.  It  simply  shows  what 
ingenuity  of  a  high  order  can  effect  by  skilfully  piecing  together  dis- 
jointed paragraphs,  and  how  the  entire  sense  of  a  chapter  can  be 
transformed  by  throwing  out  or  putting  in  clauses  and  paragraphs  at 
the  will  of  the  critic. 

We  do  not  object  to  the  critics  pursuing  their  investigations  into 
the  question  of  the  Jehovist  and  the  Elohist,  and  all  the  rest  to  any 
extent  they  please,  if  they  will  but  use  their  common  sense  in  the  pro- 
cess. We  consider  the  problem,  in  its  perplexity  and  hopelessness, 
very  much  like  that  of  squaring  the  circle.  And  while  it  is  a  matter 
of  literary  interest,  we  believe  it  to  be  void  of  all  significance  in  de- 
termining either  the  age  or  interpretation  of  the  Pentateuch.  Never- 
theless, we  shall  be  thankful  for  all  the  facts  that  can  be  developed 


286  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

agreed  where  the  first  of  the  commandments  begins 
nor  how  the  division  is  to  be  made.^  From  the  diver- 
respecting  peculiarities  of  style,  seeming  repetitions,  and  the  like. 
And  if  it  can  be  shown  that  more  than  one  writer  had  a  hand  in  the 
production  of  the  Pentateuch,  very  well.  We  are  prepared  to  accept 
any  conclusion  upon  this  point  that  is  strictly  deducible  from  the  facts, 
fully  and  fairly  brought  out  and  candidly  considered. 

But  the  operation  in  which  the  critics  are  engaged  is  a  very  ditli- 
cult  and  delicate  one,  in  which  not  only  ripe  scholarship  but  a  sound 
judgment,  clear  head,  and  freedom  from  bias  and  pet  theories  are 
very  essential ;  in  which  the  chances  of  error  are  very  great  and  mul- 
tiply with  every  forward  step,  while  each  new  complexity  in  the  the- 
ory burdens  instead  of  strengthening  it;  in  which  the  evidence  relied 
upon  is  largely  recondite,  commonly  ambiguous,  often  conflicting,  and 
frequently  factitious.  Certainly  the  case  does  not  warrant  the  posi- 
tive tone  so  frequently  assumed,  as  though  the  critics  were  omniscient 
or  infallible  ;  nor  does  it  justify  the  reckless  manner  in  which  a  favor- 
ite theory  is  often  driven  through  in  the  face  of  adverse  facts  and  at 
all  hazards,  —  the  accredited  text  and  obvious  interpretation  and  estab- 
,ished  history  and  revealed  truth,  all  made  to  give  way  before  it,  as 
.'hough  the  critic's  theory  alone  were  certain,  and  everything  must  be 
squared  to  correspond  with  it. 

1  The  schemes  severally  proposed  by  Hitzig  ("  Ostern  und  Pfing- 
)5ten,"  1838,  p.  42),  Bertheau  ("Die  sieben  Gruppen  Mosaischer  Geset- 
ze,"  p.  92),  Ewald  ("  Geschichte  des  Israel,"  2d  edit.  vol.  ii.  p.  217), 
Kayser  ("  Vorexilische  Buch,"  p.  58),  and  Wellhausen  ("Die  Compo- 
sition des  Hexateuchs,"  p.  554.  in  "  Jahrbiicher  fiir  Deutsche  Theol- 
ogie  "  for  1876)  are  as  follows,  viz.  :  — 

Hitzig.         Bertheau.  Ewald.  Kayser.       Wellhausen. 

vers.  vers.  vers.  vers.  vers. 

I  12-16       18     12-16     11-16     14-16 

2 17    19, 20       17       17        17 

3 18       21        18       18       18 

4 19,20      22  a        ig,2oa        19,20     19,20 

5 21      22  <^      20  ^      21       21 

6 22    23, 24       21       22    23, 24  ^ 

7 23,24      25 «      22     23,24       25  a 

8 25      25^   23,24       25      25^ 

9 26  a  26  a  25       26  a  26  a 

10 26  ^     26  ^      26       26  ^      26-5 


ON  THE  PROPHETS   OF  ISRAEL.  2S7 

sity  which  exists  among  them  it  is  plain  that  they 
could  equally  well  have  made  out  any  other  number 
that  was  desired,  from  seven  to  thirteen.  And  if  it 
could  be  certainly  established  that  there  are  just  ten 
law^s,  it  would  not  follow  that,  in  the  intent  of  the 
writer,  they  formed  the  original  Decalogue.  It  has 
at  least  been  quite  plausibly  maintained  that  the  de- 
cenary structure  prevails  in  several  series  of  Mosaic 
laws,  which  arc  thus  framed  in  imitation  of  the  funda- 
mental law  of  the  system. 

The  commandments  written  upon  tables  of  stone 
and  preserved  in  the  Ark  are  consequently  not  re- 
corded in  Ex.  xxxiv.  but,  as  has  been  universally 
believed  from  the  beginning,  in  Ex.  xx.  and  Deut. 
v.  These  two  are  manifestly  copies  of  one  and  the 
same  Decalogue,  the  textual  discrepancies  being 
purely  verbal  and  without  the  slightest  effect  upon  the 
sense  except  in  the  reason  annexed  to  the  fourth 
commandment.  Exodus  no  doubt  preserves  the 
exact  official  transcript,  and  Deuteronomy  its  sub- 
stantial repetition  and  enforcement  by  Moses  in  his 
address  to  the  people.  It  is  of  no  conseciucnce, 
however,  so  far  as  our  present  argument  is  concerned, 
which  of  these  is  held  to  be  the  primitive  form,  or 
whether  the  attempt  is  made  to  elicit  a  text  superior 
to  either  by  the  comparison  of  both. 

Wellhausen  throws  out  ver.  22  altogether,  and  corrects  vcr.  i^b 
into  accordance  with  xxiii.  18.  Bertheau  adheres  to  the  common 
opinion  in  regard  to  the  Decalogue,  but  maintains  the  decenary  divi- 
sion of  these  laws,  and  generally  of  the  Mosaic  statutes  in  the  three 
middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch.  Ewald  finds  five  successive  deca- 
logues in  Leviticus  vii.  and  vi. ;  (Authorized  Version  vi.  S-vii.  n). 


288  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

Wellhausen's  second  objection  to  the  authenticity 
of  the  Decalogue  Is  (we  quote  again  from  the  article 
''Israel"):  — 

"  (2.)  The  prohibition  of  images  was  during  the  older  pe- 
riod quite  unknown ;  Moses  himself  is  said  to  have  made  a 
brazen  serpent  which  down  to  Hezekiah's  time  continued  to 
be  worshipped  at  Jerusalem  as  an  image  of  Jehovah." 

The  second  commandment  occasions  endless  per- 
plexity to  this  most  recent  school  of  critics.  How 
ineffectually  Kuenen  struggles  to  rid  himself  of  it 
appears  from  the  following  passage  In  his  '*  Religion 
of  Israel"  (vol.  i.  p.  287). 

"  Moses'  attitude  towards  the  worship  of  images  is  a  very 
disputed  point.  The  second  of  the  Ten  Words  forbids  it 
without  reserve,  but  is  strongly  suspected  to  have  been  re- 
moulded and  enlarged.  Its  great  length  of  itself  alone  gives 
rise  to  this  presumption.  If  it  embraced  nothing  more  than 
the  words  'Thou  shalt  have  none  other  gods  before  My 
face/  ^  we  should  not  think  of  calling  it  incomplete ;  the 
rest  is  superfluous  and  is  therefore  suspected.  Besides  this,  it 
has  been  remarked  that  the  words  '  thou  shalt  not  make  unto 

1  Kuenen  reckons  the  preface  to  the  ten  commandments  as  the 
first  of  the  Ten  Words.  The  first  and  second  commandments  he 
throws  together  as  the  Second  Word,  which  he  would  then  condense 
by  abolishing  the  second  commandment  entirely,  or  at  least  cutting 
out  that  portion  of  it  which  is  distinctive  and  refers  to  the  worship  of 
images.  And  this  arbitrary  suppression  of  one  of  the  fundamental 
requirements  of  the  Decalogue  is  all  the  ground  for  doubt  that  he  can 
extract  from  the  Ten  Words  themselves.  Dr.  Oort,  who  is  heartily 
in  sympathy  with  Kuenen  and  his  school,  lops  all  that  he  possibly 
can  from  the  commandments,  reducing  the  second  to  the  bald  injunc- 
tion, "make  no  image  of  a  God"  ("The  Bible  for  Learners,"  p.  18). 
But  even  then  the  prohibition  of  image-worship  remains. 


ON  THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL.  289 

thee  any  graven  image,  or  any  likeness  of  anything  that  is  in 
heaven  above  or  on  the  earth  beneath  or  in  the  waters  under 
the  earth  '  —  sever  the  connection  between  the  precethng  and 
the  following  sentences,  and  that  after  these  words  have  been 
removed,  nothing  remains  but  the  prohibition  to  serve  other 
gods.  Thus  the  Ten  Words  themselves  alone  give  abun- 
dant ground  for  throwing  doubt  upon  the  Mosaic  origin  of 
the  warning  against  images.  But  history  also  seems  dis- 
tinctly to  bear  witness  against  it.  The  worship  of  Jahveh 
under  the  form  of  a  bull  was  very  general  in  Israel  in  later 
times ;  and  in  the  kingdom  of  Ephraim,  during  the  two  and 
a  half  centuries  of  its  existence,  it  was  the  religion  of  the 
state.  Is  it  likely  then  that  Moses  expressly  declared  him- 
self opposed  to  it  ?  According  to  a  narrative  in  the  book  of 
Judges,  a  grandson  of  iSIoses,  Jonathan  ben  Gershom, 
served  as  a  priest  at  Dan  in  a  temple  in  which  a  graven 
image  of  Jahveh  was  placed  :  would  the  commandment  of 
the  law^-giver  have  been  broken  in  this  way  by  the  members 
of  his  own  family?  Again,  the  author  of  the  books  of  Kings 
informs  us  that  Hezekiah  '  broke  in  pieces  the  brazen  ser- 
pent which  Moses  had  made,  for  unto  those  days  the  Israel- 
ites had  burned  incense  in  honor  of  that  serpent,  and  it  was 
called  JVehushtan  '  (i.  e.  brass-god)  ;  surely  this  implies  that 
Moses  was  not  so  averse  to  images  as  the  Peutateuch  repre- 
sents him  to  have  been." 

Dr.  Kucncn  might  have  pushed  his  argument  much 
further.  Professedly  Christian  states  grant  div^orces 
for  very  insufficient  reasons:  is  it  likely  that  this  can 
be  prohibited  in  the  New  Testament?  The  Roman 
Catholic  Church  forbids  its  priests  to  marry,  and  com- 
mands its  adherents  to  abstain  from  meats  on  Fridays 
and  other  special  seasons:   would  it  do  this,  if  I.Tim. 

19 


290  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

iv.  3  were  in  its  canon  of  faith?  The  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  instituted  the  eucharist,  the  bread  of  which  is 
held  up  to  adoration  in  every  celebration  of  the  mass : 
would  even  Dr.  Kuenen  dare  to  hold  Him  respon- 
sible for  this  perversion?  And  yet  this  is  all  that  he 
has  to  say  against  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  second 
conmandment;  and  this  is  taken  back  by  himself  in 
the  very  next  paragraph.  He  owns  that  the  story  of 
the  brazen  serpent,  as  every  rational  man  must  see  at 
a  glance,  "  signifies  very  little."  ''  If  it  proves  any- 
thing it  proves  only  this,  that  the  people  knew  noth- 
ing of  a  Mosaic  prohibition  so  absolute  as  that  which 
appears  in  the  Decalogue."  Will  he  say  the  same  of 
the  more  modern  worshippers  of  saintly  relics?  He 
adds :  *'  The  same  applies  to  the  other  two  facts  to 
which  we  referred  above.  .  .  .  The  existejice  of  the 
bull-worship  is  no  sufficient  argument  against  the 
supposition  that  Moses  forbade  any  image  of  Jahveh. 
But  the  fact  that  this  form  of  Jahveh-worship  co7itin- 
ued  to  exist  tindistiLvbed  is  very  difficult  to  reconcile 
with  that  supposition."  It  *'  continued  to  exist  un- 
disturbed," only  as  other  crimes  which  are  perpe- 
trated in  the  face  of  the  known  statute.  It  was  not 
sanctioned  or  approved  by  the  Prophets  or  other 
good  men.  It  was  openly  denounced  and  censured, 
and  the  people  punished  for  it  by  being  given  into 
the  power  of  their  enemies.     Dr.  Kuenen  proceeds  : 

"There  is  one  fact  of  which  we  may  not  lose  sight  in  this 
investigation.  From  the  Mosaic  times  downward  there 
always  existed  in  Israel  a  worship  of  Jahveh  without  an 
image.     Scarcely  any  tradition  of  Hebrew  antiquity  is  better 


ON  THE  PROPHETS  OE  ISRAEL 


291 


guaranteed  than  that  which  derives  tlie  Ark  of  Jahvch  from 
the  Law-giver  himself.  ...  If  Moses  beheved  this  (viz.  that 
the  Ark  was  the  abode  of  Jahveh)  and  accordingly  oflered 
the  common  sacrifices  before  the  Ark,  then  he  himself  cer- 
tainly did  not  erect  an  image  of  Jahveh,  much  less  ordained 
the  use  of  one." 

His  conclusion  is  that  while  Moses  opposed  the  use 
of  Jahveh-imagcs  indirectly,  the  prohibition  of  them 
"  was  not  decreed  by  him  but  at  a  much  later  period, 
although  it  was  done  in  conformity  with  his  spirit;  " 
a  conclusion  which  must  be  accepted,  if  at  all,  upon 
his  sole  ipsc-dixit. 

Dr.  Dillmann^  gives  the  following  compact  state- 
ment of  the  case. 

"  It  cannot  with  good  reason  be  maintained  that  such  a 
prohibition,  involving  the  idea  of  the  impossibility  of  making 
any  representation  of  God,  as  well  as  His  invisibility  and 
spirituality,  is  too  advanced  for  Moses'  time  and  his  stage  of 
knowledge,  and  therefore  cannot  have  been  given  by  him, 
but  must  have  been  first  introduced  into  the  Decalogue  at 
a  much  later  date.  Apart  from  Ex.  xxxii.,  where  the  nar- 
rative attributes  to  Moses  a  clear  perception  of  the  unlawful- 
ness of  an  image  of  Jehovah,  it  is  certain  in  the  first  place 
that  in  the  traditions  of  their  fathers  a  cultus  without  images 
is  ascribed  to  the  Patriarchs  ;  and  secondly,  that  in  the  post- 
Mosaic  period  it  was  a  recognized  i)rinciple,  at  least  at  the 
central  Sanctuary  of  the  entire  people  and  at  the  Temple  of 
Solomon,  that  no  representation  was  to  be  made  of  Jehovah.- 

1  "  Die  Biicher  Exodus  und  Leviticus,"  pp.  20S,  209. 

2  As  a  specimen  of  the  fairness  of  Wellhauscn's  statements,  com- 
pare his  remark,  article  "  Israel,"  p.  406  :  "  Images  of  the  Deity  were 
exhibited  in  all  three  places  [Jerusalem,  Bethel,  and  Dan],  and  indeed 
in  every  place  where  a  house  of  God  was  found." 


292  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

The  worship  of  an  image  of  Jehovah  at  Sinai  (Ex.  xxxii.),  in 
the  time  of  the  Judges,  and  in  the  kingdom  of  the  Ten  Tribes, 
does  not  prove  that  the  prohibition  of  images  was  unknown, 
bnt  only  that  it  was  very  difficult  to  secure  its  proper  recog- 
nition by  the  mass  of  the  people,  especially  of  the  Northern 
Tribes,  who  were  more  Canaanitislily  disposed.  Or  rather, 
it  was  for  centuries  an  object  of  contention  between  the 
stricter  and  the  more  lax  party,  —  the  latter  holding  that  it  for- 
bade only  the  images  of  false  gods,  the  former  that  it  likewise 
forbade  any  image  of  Jehovah.  Prophets  such  as  Amos  and 
Hosea,  who  contended  against  the  images  of  the  calves  at 
Bethel  and  at  Dan,  never  announce  the  principle  that  no 
representation  can  be  made  of  Jehovah  as  anything  new, 
but  simply  presuppose  it  as  known.  However  far  we  go 
back  in  the  post-Mosaic  history,  we  find  it  already  existing, 
at  least  as  practically  carried  into  effect  at  the  central  Sanc- 
tuary ;  from  whom  then  can  it  have  proceeded  but  from  the 
legislator,  Moses  himself?" 

Dr.  Robertson  Smith  does  not  explicitly  deny 
the  antiquity  of  the  Decalogue,  nor  the  right  of 
the  second  commandment  to  a  place  in  it,  but  he 
more  than  once  expresses  himself  in  a  manner  that 
appears  to  lead  in  that  direction. 

"  The  principle  of  the  second  commandment,  that  Jehovah 
is  not  to  be  worshipped  by  images,  which  is  often  appealed 
to  as  containing  the  most  characteristic  peculiarity  of  Mosa- 
ism,  cannot,  in  the  light  of  history,  be  viewed  as  having  had 
so  fundamental  a  place  in  the  religion  of  early  Israel  "  (p. 
d"^.  "If  the  prophecy  of  Hosea  stood  alone  it  would  be 
reasonable  to  think  that  this  attack  on  the  images  of  the 
popular  religion  was  simply  based  on  the  second  command- 
ment.    But  when  we  contrast  it  with  the  absolute  silence  of 


ox  THE   PROPHETS   OF  ISRAEL. 


■93 


earlier  Prophets  we  can  hardly  accept  this  explanation  as 
adequate  "  (p.  176).  "  Hosea  does  not  condemn  the  wor- 
ship of  the  calves  because  idols  are  forbidden  by  the  Law  ;  he 
excludes  the  calves  from  the  sphere  of  true  religion  because 
the  worship  which  they  receive  has  no  affinity  to  the  true 
attitude  of  Israel  to  Jehovah  "  (p.  177). 

How  he  can  say  that  "  Amos  never  speaks  of  the 
golden  calves  as  the  sin  of  the  Northern  sanctuaries  " 
(p.  140)  is  unaccountable,  since  this  Prophet  ex- 
pressly groups  together  as  objects  of  the  divine  judg- 
ment, "  they  that  swear  by  the  sin  of  Samaria,  and 
say,  Thy  god,  O  Dan,  liveth,  and,  The  manner  of 
Beersheba  liveth"  (Am.  viii.  14).  The  god  of  Dan 
can  be  nothing  but  the  Golden  Calf;  and  the  sin  of 
Samaria  is  the  same  thing,  for  they  that  swear  by  it 
say  "  By  the  life  of  thy  god,  O  Dan."  It  is  called  the 
sin  of  Samaria  as  the  object  of  idolatrous  worship  to 
both  the  capital  and  the  kingdom ;  in  like  manner 
Hosea  calls  it  the  Calf  of  Samaria  (Hos.  viii.  5,  6; 
comp.  also  Deut.  ix.  21).  The  Doctor,  in  disregard 
of  the  connection,  thinks  that  Amos  alludes  rather  to 
the  Ashera  in  Samaria  (ll.  Kings  xiii.  6).  lUit  why, 
upon  his  principles,  Amos  should  inveigh  against  this, 
even  if  it  were  still  there  in  his  time,  is  not  so  clear; 
for  we  are  told  ^  that  this  is  one  of  "  the  old  marks 
of  a  sanctuary  .  .  .  which  had  been  used  by  the 
Patriarchs  and  continued  to  exist  in  sanctuaries  of 
Jehovah  down  to  the  eighth  century,"  and  the  prohi- 
bition of  which  in  Deuteronomy  "  is  one  of  the  clear- 
est proofs "  that  this  book  is  posterior  to  Hosea, 
1  "  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,"  p.  353. 


294  ^^-  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

Isaiah,  and  Micah.  The  terms,  In  which  Amos,  with 
distinct  allusion  to  the  second  commandment  (Ex. 
XX.  4),  expresses  his  contempt  and  abhorrence  of  the 
objects  of  Israel's  idolatrous  worship,  ''  which  ye 
made  to  yourselves"  (v.  26),  equally  cover  the 
golden  calves,  and  include  them  in  the  same  category 
of  man-made  divinities.  (Comp.  Hos.  viii.  6.)  He 
also  very  plainly  declares  that  Jehovah  was  not  to  be 
found  at  Bethel  (v.  5),  which  cannot  be  interpreted 
differently  from  the  precisely  similar  language  of 
Hosea  iv.  15;  that  to  worship  at  Bethel  was  to 
transgress  (Am.  iv.  4};  that  its  altars  were  specially 
obnoxious  to  the  divine  judgment  (iii.  14),  while 
Zion  and  Jerusalem  was  Jehovah's  earthly  abode 
(i.  2).  When  these  passages  are  viewed  in  con- 
nection with  those  first  cited,  it  is  plain  that  the 
idolatry  of  the  calves  is  prominent  in  his  thoughts 
in  these  denunciations. 

Elisha's  attitude  to  the  golden  calves  is  shown  by 
the  message  which  he  sent  to  Jehu  (ll.  Kings  ix.  9),  in 
which  he  repeated  the  very  words  of  Elijah  (l.  Kings 
xxi.  22  ;  see  above,  p.  271).  When  Jehoram,  who  had 
"  put  away  the  image  of  Baal  that  his  father  Ahab 
had  made  "  and  adhered  simply  to  the  worship  of  the 
calves  (11.  Kings  iii.  2,  3),  sought  the  aid  of  Elisha 
in  perilous  circumstances,  the  Prophet's  response  was  : 
"  What  have  I  to  do  with  thee  ?  Get  thee  to  the 
Prophets  of  thy  father,  and  to  the  Prophets  of  thy 
mother.  .  .  As  the  LORD  of  hosts  liveth,  before 
whom  I  stand,  were  it  not  that  I  regard  the  presence 
of  Jehoshaphat   king   of  Judah,  I    would    not   look 


ON  THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL.  295 

toward  thee  nor  see  thee  "  ^  (vers.  13,  14).  It  is  also 
a  significant  fact  that  it  was  children  of  Bethel  that 
mocked  Elisha,  and  upon  whom  he  pronounced  his 
fatal  curse  (ii.  23,  24).  In  that  seat  of  image-wor- 
ship the  children  had  caught  the  bitter  feelings  of 
their  elders  towards  the  aged  Prophet  of  the  Lord. 
It  is  further  a  suggestive  circumstance  that  it  is  pre- 
cisely in  the  kingdom  of  the  Ten  Tribes  that  the 
Prophets  assume  such  unwonted  prominence,  and 
that  such  full  and  striking  narratives  are  given  of 
their  labors  as  these  of  Elijah,  Elisha,  and  the  Sons  of 
the  Prophets  under  their  superintendence.  Whether 
the  record  is  accepted  as  true,  or  dismissed  as  legen- 
dary, it  nevertheless  shows,  in  contrast  with  the  dearth 
of  like  stories  in  Judah,  that  either  in  the  plan  of  God 
or  in  the  general  sense  of  the  people  there  was  a 
peculiarity  in  the  state  of  affairs  in  Ephraim  which 
did  not  exist  in  Judah,  and  which  demanded  a  meas- 
ure of  Prophetic  interference  and  activity  in  the  one, 
that  was  not  requisite  in  the  other. 

The  way  in  which  the  worship  of  the  calves  was 
regarded  by  other  and  earlier  Prophets  has  been 
shown  already  (see  above,  p.  265) ;  so  that  all  objec- 
tion to  the  prior  existence  of  the  second  command- 
ment on  that  score  is  fully  set  aside, 

Wellhausen's  third  objection  to  the  authenticity  of 
the  Decalogue  is  :  — 

1  And  this  though  the  king,  both  in  his  exclamation  (ver.  10)  and 
in  his  appeal  to  the  Prophet  (ver.  13),  confessed  his  belief  in  the  su- 
preme government  of  Jehovah.  "The  Lord  hath  called  these  three 
kings  together,  to  deliver  them  into  the  hand  of  Moab." 


296  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

"  (3  )  The  essentially  and  necessarily  national  character 
of  the  older  phases  of  the  religion  of  Jehovah  completely  dis- 
appears in  the  quite  universal  code  of  morals  which  is  given 
in  the  Decalogue  as  the  fundamental  law  of  Israel ;  but  the 
entire  series  of  religious  personalities  throughout  the  period  of 
the  Judges  and  the  Kings  —  from  Deborah,  who  praised  Jael's 
treacherous  act  of  murder,  to  David,  who  caused  his  prisoners 
of  war  to  be  sawn  asunder  and  burnt  —  make  it  very  difficult 
to  believe  that  the  religion  of  Israel  was  from  the  outset  one 
of  a  specifically  moral  character.  The  true  spirit  of  the  old 
religion  may  be  gathered  much  more  truly  from  Judg.  v.  than 
from  Ex.  xx." 

Dr.  Robertson  Smith  has  relieved  us  from  the  ne- 
cessity of  replying  to  this  objection.  In  opposition  to 
both  Wellhausen  and  Duhm  he  affirms  in  the  most 
positive  manner  that  the  religion  of  Israel  was  moral 
from  the  beginning,  and  that  its  specific  character  was 
determined  by  the  exalted  nature  of  Jehovah  himself; 
by  which  he  means  the  living,  acting  personality  of 
the  Most  High,  and  not  barely  the  conceptions  formed 
of  Him  by  His  worshippers. 

''  The  real  difference  between  the  rehgion  of  Jehovah  and 
the  rehgion  of  the  nations  .  .  .  lies  in  the  personal  character 
of  Jehovah,  and  in  the  relations,  corresponding  to  His  charac- 
ter, which  He  seeks  to  maintain  with  His  people.  Properly 
speaking,  the  heathen  deities  have  no  personal  character  .  .  . 
in  the  sense  of  a  fixed  and  independent  habit  of '  will.  The 
attributes  ascribed  to  them  were  a  mere  reflex  of  the  attributes 
of  their  worshippers.  .  .  .  The  god  always  remained  on  the 
same  ethical  level  with  his  people.  .  .  .  Not  so  Jehovah.  .  .  . 
He  had  a  will  and  purpose  of  His  own,  —  a  purpose  rising 


ON  THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL. 


297 


above  the  current  ideas  of  His  worshippers,  and  a  will  directed 
with  steady  consistency  to  a  moral  aim.  ...  All  His  dealings 
with  Israel  were  directed  to  lead  the  people  on  to  higher 
things  than  their  natural  character  inclined  towards.  To 
know  Jehovah  and  to  serve  Him  aright  involved  a  moral 
effort  "  (pp.  66,  67).  "When  we  speak  of  Jehovah  as  dis- 
playing a  consistent  character  in  His  sovereignty  over  Israel, 
we  necessarily  imply  that  Israel's  religion  is  a  moral  religion, 
that  Jehovah  is  a  God  of  righteousness,  whose  dealings  with 
His  people  follow  an  ethical  standard  "  (p.  71). 

And  the  difficulty  which  Wellhauscn  deduces  from 
the  low  moral  standard  and  conduct  of  certain  Old 
Testament  worthies  is  dealt  with  in  the  following 
manner:  — 

"  The  fundamental  superiority  of  the  Hebrew  religion  does 
not  lie  in  the  particular  system  of  social  morality  that  it  en- 
forces, but  in  the  more  absolute  and  self-consistent  righteous- 
ness of  the  Divine  Judge.  .  .  .  There  are  many  things  in  the 
social  order  of  the  Hebrews,  such  as  polygamy,  blood-revenge, 
slavery,  the  treatment  of  enemies,  which  do  not  correspond 
with  the  highest  ideal  morality,  but  belong  to  an  imperfect 
social  state,  or,  as  the  gospel  puts  it,  were  tolerated  for  the 
hardness  of  the  people's  hearts.  But,  with  all  this,  the  reli- 
gion of  Jehovah  put  morality  on  a  far  sounder  basis  than  any 
other  religion  did,  because  in  it  the  righteousness  of  Jehovah 
as  a  God  enforcing  the  known  laws  of  morality  was  conceived 
as  absolute,  and  as  showing  itself  absolute,  not  in  a  future 
state,  but  upon  earth.  .  .  .  There  was  no  ground  to  ascribe 
to  Him  less  than  absolute  sovereignty  and  absolute  righteous- 
ness. If  the  masses  lost  sight  of  those  great  qualities,  and 
assimilated  His  nature  to  that  of  the  Ganaanite  deities,  the 
Prophets  were  justified  in  reminding  them  that  Jehovah  was 


298  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

Israel's  God  before  they  knew  the  Baalim,  and  that  He  had  then 
showed  Himself  a  God  far  different  from  these  "  (pp.  73,  74). 

Wellhausen's  fourth  and  last  objection  is :  — 

"  (4.)  It  is  extremely  doubtful  whether  the  actual  mono- 
theism which  is  undoubtedly  presupposed  in  the  universal 
moral  precepts  of  the  Decalogue  could  have  formed  the  foun- 
dation of  a  national  religion.  It  was  first  developed  out  of 
the  national  religion  at  the  downfall  of  the  nation,  and  there- 
upon kept  its  hold  upon  the  people  in  an  artificial  manner  by 
means  of  tlie  idea  of  a  covenant  formed  by  the  God  of  the 
universe  with,  in  the  first  instance,  Israel  alone." 

No  further  reply  seems  necessary  to  an  allegation 
so  purely  subjective,  than  that  Professor  Wellhausen's 
opinion  is  no  law  to  other  persons. 

If,  then,  anything  whatever  is  certainly  known  of 
the  Mosaic  age,  it  is  indubitably  established  that  the 
Mosaic  Ark  contained  tables  of  stone  on  which  w^ere 
engraved  the  Ten  Commandments.  These  were  treas- 
ured in  the  most  sacred  apartment  of  the  Sanctuary. 
They  formed  the  basis  of  the  covenant  between  Jeho- 
vah and  Israel.  They  were  the  fundamental  law  of 
the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  by  which  all  further  en- 
actments were  regulated,  and  to  which  they  were  sup- 
plementary. They  were  believed  to  have  emanated 
directly  and  even  verbally  from  Jehovah  Himself, 
and  to  have  been  by  Him  recorded  in  stone  to  indi- 
cate their  perpetual,  binding  force.  This  sacred  Ark, 
with  its  precious  contents,  was  safely  guarded  until 
the  time  of  Solomon,  when  it  was  transferred  to  the 
Temple  (l.  Kings  viii.  6-9,  2 1  ;  II.  Chron.  v.  7-10,  vi.  11, 


ON  THE  PROPHETS  OE  ISRAEL.  299 

41).  It  is  still  spoken  of  in  tlic  time  of  Jeremiah  (iii. 
16),  and  the  covenant  on  stone,  which  it  contained,  was 
only  to  be  superseded  by  the  law  written  on  the  heart 
(xxxi.  32,  33;  see  also  ir.  Chron.  xxxv.  3).  Under 
these  circumstances  it  is  impossible  that  these  com- 
mandments should  not  have  been  carefully  and  accu- 
rately preserved  and  transmitted.  The  positive  state- 
ments in  the  Pentateuch  itself  that  Moses  wrote  certain 
laws,  Dr.  Robertson  Smith  ^  seeks  to  limit  to  the  De- 
calogue, but  in  so  doing  acknowledges  that  there  is 
definite  and  explicit  testimony  that  he  did  at  least 
WTite  it.  Two  copies  of  these  commandments  exist, 
attached  to  different  codes  of  laws,  and,  with  unimport- 
ant variations,  are  identical  throughout.  If  monumen- 
tal and  historical  evidence  is  of  any  worth,  these  arc 
the  very  commandments  delivered  to  Moses.  And 
this  conclusion  is  not  to  be  set  aside  by  conjectures 
of  the  critics,  which  have  not  even  the  pretence  of  any 
evidence  to  support  them.'-^ 

These  things  being  so,  some  important  consequences 
follow.  The  sacredness  of  Iloreb  to  Elijah  sprang 
from   the   giving  of  the  Ten   Commandments  on  its 


1  "  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,"  p.  331. 

2  Such  assertions  as  these  of  Wellhausen  cannot  be  dignified  by 
the  name  of  proofs,  unless  his  word  is  to  be  taken  in  lieu  of  evidence : 
"  Some  passages  of  the  Decalogue  have  a  Deuteronomic  tinge,  c.  g., 
'thy  stranger  that  is  within  thy  gates'  (Ex.  xx.  lo),  'out  of  the  house 
of  bondage  '  (ver.  2),  and  the  whole  of  ver.  6."  How  does  he  know 
but  that,  on  the  other  hand,  Deuteronomy  received  its  tinge  from  the 
Decalogue.?  "The  reason  for  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  in  ver.  11  first 
came  from  the  last  rcdadatr  oi  the  Pentateuch."  "Jahrbucher  fUr 
Deutsche  Theologic,"  xxi.  p.  55S. 


3O0  DI^.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

summit;  and  his  recognition  of  the  God  of  Horeb 
is  in  diametrical  opposition  to  the  worship  of  the 
calves. 

But  there  are  also  two  other  deductions  which  have 
a  much  wider  reach.  First,  Moses  had  a  far  more 
exalted  conception  of  Jehovah  than  is  allowed  to  him 
in  these  Lectures.  The  God  of  the  Ten  Command- 
ments is  a  being  of  whom  no  image  or  representation 
can  be  made ;  the  Creator  of  heaven  and  earth  and 
sea,  and  all  that  in  them  is;  the  exclusive  object  of 
Israel's  worship ;  a  God  of  truth,  punishing  iniquity, 
and  who  lays  His  demands  upon  the  affections  and 
not  merely  upon  the  outward  conduct,  expecting  the 
love  of  His  worshippers,  and  forbidding  them  to 
covet  the  possessions  of  others.  The  religion  of  Is- 
rael began  on  this  high  plane,  so  far  as  divine  revela- 
tion and  requirements  are  concerned.  And  the 
Prophets,  instead  of  evolving  a  spiritual  religion  from 
mere  political  ethics,  or  something  lower  still,  simply 
recalled  the  people  to  this  ancient  standard,  and  en- 
forced upon  their  contemporaries  what  had  already 
been  taught  by  Moses. 

Secondly,  the  Decalogue  affords  palpable  in- 
stances of  laws  well  known,  and  of  the  highest  au- 
thority, which  were  flagrantly  disregarded.  Every 
apostasy  to  Baal  and  Ashtoreth  in  the  period  of  the 
Judges  was  in  open  violation  of  the  first  command- 
ment. It  was,  as  Dr.  Robertson  Smith  concedes,  a 
falling  away  to  the  service  of  the  gods  of  their  ene- 
mies, which  endangered  the  very  existence  of  the 
religion   of  Jehovah.      It  was  a  departure  from  the 


ON  THE  PROPHETS  OE  ISRAEL.  30 1 

fundamental  Law  of  Israel,  even  on  the  low  ground 
assumed  by  the  critics  themselves  that  Jehovah  was 
but  a  national  deity  like  Chemosh  or  Milcom.  And 
if  Ahab  could  persuade  himself  that  worshipping  the 
God  of  a  friendly  state  was  no  violation  of  this  com- 
mandment, this  is  but  a  fresh  ilhistration  of  the  point 
in  question.  The  second  commandment  was  broken 
by  Aaron  at  the  very  foot  of  Sinai,  by  the  idolater 
Micah  and  the  renegade  Danites,  and  by  the  Ten 
Tribes  which  followed  Jeroboam  in  the  worship  of 
the  calves.  If  there  could  be  these  notorious  viola- 
tions of  covenant  laws,  cut  in  stone  and  deposited  in 
the  Ark,  what  becomes  of  the  argument  that  the  non- 
existence of  a  statute  may  be  inferred  from  the  persis- 
tent disregard  of  it? 

These  two  principles,  thus  established,  completely 
overturn  this  recent  critical  hypothesis  from  its  foun- 
dations, and  demolish  its  reconstructed  history  of 
Israel's  religion.  The  Ark  of  the  Covenant  is  an 
invincible  argument  of  its  utter  falsity. 

Dr.  Robertson  Smith  undertakes  (p.  109)  to  divide 
the  histories  of  the  Old  Testament  into  distinct  groups 
and  to  assign  to  each  a  separate  legal  standard  accord- 
ing to  the  period  in  which  it  was  written. 

''The  latest  history  in  the  books  of  Chronicles  presupposes 
the  whole  Pentateuch  ;  tlie  main  thread  of  the  books  of  Kings 
accepts  the  standard  of  the  book  of  Deuteronomy,  but  knows 
nothing  of  the  Levitical  legislation  ;  and  older  narratives  now 
incorporated  in  the  Kings  —  as,  fox  example,  the  histories  of 
Elijah  and  Elisha,  which  every  one  can  see  to  be  ancient  and 
distinct   documents  —  know  nothing  of  the   Deuteronomic 


302  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

law  of  the  one  altar,  and,  like  Elijah  himself,  are  indifferent 
even  to  the  worship  of  the  golden  calves.  These  older 
narratives,  with  the  greater  part  of  the  books  of  Samuel  and 
Judges,  accept  as  fitting  and  normal  a  stamp  of  worship 
closely  modelled  on  the  religion  of  the  Patriarchs  as  it  is 
depicted  in  Genesis,  or  based  on  the  ancient  law  of  Ex.  xx. 
24,  where  Jehovah  promises  to  meet  with  His  people  and 
bless  them  at  the  altars  of  earth  or  unhewn  stone  which  stand 
in  all  corners  of  the  land,  on  every  spot  where  Jehovah  has 
set  a  memorial  of  His  name." 

The  style  of  worship  regarded  as  normal  in  Judges 
and  Samuel  has  been  sufficiently  considered  in  pre- 
ceding parts  of  this  volume,  and  their  distinct  recog- 
nition of  the  law  of  one  altar  has  been  pointed  out 
(pp.  87  ff.,  pp.  137  ff.).  We  have  also  seen  that  the 
histories  of  Elijah  and  Elisha  are  not  indififerent  to 
the  worship  of  the  golden  calves ;  and  they  would  not 
have  been  modelled  on  the  religion  of  the  Patriarchs 
if  they  were.  In  the  entire  lives  of  these  two  Proph- 
ets there  is  but  one  recorded  act  of  sacrifice,  the  mira- 
culous test  of  Jehovah's  godhead  at  Carmel.  If  a 
sweeping  conclusion  is  to  be  drawn  from  this  single 
fact,  it  would  certainly  be  as  natural  to  infer  that  they 
chose  to  abstain  from  sacrifice  on  ordinary  occasions, 
inasmuch  as  they  were  debarred  from  the  central 
Sanctuary,  as  that  they  actually  did  sacrifice  in  various 
parts  of  the  land,  though  this  is  nowhere  intimated  in 
the  narrative. 

It  is  plainly,  however,  a  venturesome  affirmation, 
that  Deuteronomy  was  unknown,  or  even  the  Levitical 
Law,  when  these  narratives  were  framed.    Elijah's  first 


ox   THE  PROPHETS   OE  ISRAEL.  303 

word  to  the  idolatrous  king,  "  There  shall  be  no 
rain"  (l.  Kings  xvii.  i),  is  in  precise  conformity  with 
the  threatening,  Deut.  xi.  16,  17.  The  material  for 
sacrifice  and  its  manipulation  (xviii.  23,  33),  accords 
with  the  requirements  of  the  Law,  even  to  the  use  of 
its  technical  terms  (Lev.  i.  6-8,  ix.  16)  ;  its  time  was 
fixed  by  that  of  the  daily  meat-offering  (xviii.  29,  36), 
which  was  presented  both  evening  and  morning  (ir. 
Kings  iii.  20),  agreeably  to  Ex.  xxix.  38-41  ;  its  con- 
sumption by  fire  from  the  LORI)  (xviii.  24,  38) 
has  its  counterpart  in  Lev.  ix.  24.  Indeed,  almost 
all  the  miracles  in  these  narratives  bear  a  striking  re- 
semblance to  those  of  the  Pentateuch  ;  e.  g.  the  super- 
natural supply  of  food  (xvii.  6,  xix.  6  ;  comp.  Ex.  xvi. 
12)  and  of  water  (ll.  Kings  iii.  17;  comp.  Num.  xx. 
8)  ;  necessary  things  made  to  last  for  an  indefinite  pe- 
riod(l.  Kings  xvii.  14;  comp.  Deut.  xxix.  5)  ;  fire  to 
consume  the  Prophet's  adversaries  (ll.  Kings  i.  10,  12 ; 
comp.  Num.  xi.  i,  xvi.  35)  ;  the  Lord's  "  taking  "  him 
to  heaven  (ii.  3  ff. ;  comp.  Gen.  v.  24)  ;  dividing  the  Jor- 
dan (ii.  8,  14 ;  comp.  Ex.  xiv.  2 1  ;  Josh.  iv.  23) ;  healing 
the  waters  (ii.  21  ;  comp.  Ex.  xv;  25)  ;  the  promise  of 
a  son  to  the  Shunemite  (iv.  16;  comp.  Gen.  xviii.  10) ; 
the  infliction  of  leprosy  on  Gehazi  (v.  27  ;  comp.  Num. 
xii.  10^);  the  healing  of  Naaman  (v.  lO;  comp.  Num. 
xii.  13;  Lev.  xiv.  7,  8);  guarded  by  angels  (vi.  17; 
comp.  Gen.  xxxii.  i,  2);  smiting  with  blindness  (vi. 
18  ;  comp.  Gen.  xix.  11).    Even  if  it  should  be  charged 

1  "  Leprous  as  snow  "  occurs  only  in  these  passages  and  in  Ex.  iv.  6. 
And  in  some  otlier  instances  here  adduced  the  identity  of  characteris- 
tic expressions  adds  force  to  the  similarity  of  the  incidents. 


304 


DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 


that  these  are  legends  and  not  real  occurrences,  such 
stories  could  only  have  originated  among  a  people 
familiar  with  the  narratives  of  the  Pentateuch.  The 
slaughter  of  the  priests  of  Baal  (l.  Kings  xviii.  40)  was 
in  obedience  to  Deut.  xiii.  9,  xvii.  5.  Elijah's  visit  to 
Horeb  implies  all  that  made  this  mountain  sacred  at 
the  time  of  the  Exodus,  and  his  fast  of  forty  days  and 
forty  nights  (xix.  8)  has  its  parallel  in  Ex.  xxxiv.  28. 
The  law  concerning  one  devoted  to  utter  destruction 
(xx.  42)  is  found  Lev.  xxvii.  29.  Naboth's  refusal 
to  part  with  his  vineyard  (xxi.  3)  is  based  on  Lev. 
XXV.  23  ;  comp.  Num.  xxxvi.  8,  9.  The_ forms  of  law 
were  observed  in  the  judicial  murder  of  Naboth  (xxi. 
10).  The  accusation  was  based  on  Ex.  xxii.  28,  which 
Dr.  Robertson  Smith  considers  ancient ;  but  the  two 
witnesses  are  in  conformity  with  Num.  xxxv.  30,  Deut. 
xvii.  6,  7,  xix.  1 5  ;  and  the  -mode  of  inflicting  the 
sentence  w^ith  Deut.  xiii.  10,  xvii.  5.  Micaiah  (xxii. 
17)  adopts  the  language  of  Moses  (Num.  xxvii.  17), 
and  ver.  28  declares  his  readiness  to  abide  by  the  test 
given  of  a  true  prophet  (Deut.  xviii.  22).  The  double 
portion,  which  Elisha  asks  (ll.  Kings  ii.  9),  was  the 
legal  inheritance  of  a  first-born  son  (Deut  xxi.  17). 
The  infliction  upon  the  children  at  Bethel  (ver.  24)  is 
in  accordance  with  Lev.  xxvi.  22.  Persons  were  made 
servants  for  debt  (iv.  i  ;  comp.  Lev.  xxv.  39,40)-  The 
Sabbath  and  new-moon  were  observed  (iv.  23  ;  see 
Lev.  xxiii.  3  ;  Num.  xxviii.  11),  and  presentation  was 
made  of  the  first-fruits  (iv.  42 1;  see  Num.  xviii.  12,  13  ; 

1  The  word  translated  "  full  ears  of  corn  "  occurs  nowhere  else  in, 
this  sense,  outside  of  the  Levitical  Law  (Lev.  ii.  14,  xxiii.  14). 


ON   THE   PROrilKTS   OF  ISRAEL.  305 

Deut.  xviii.  4,  5)  ;  but  in  the  absence  of  a  lawful  sanc- 
tuary the  **  holy  convocation  "  assembled  about  the 
Prophet,  and  his  devout  adherents  broui,dit  the  first- 
fruits  to  him  as  to  one  who  for  the  time  "  ministered  in 
the  name  of  the  LORD."  II.  Kings  v.  7  borrows  from 
Deut.  xxxii.  39.  The  king,  no  doubt,  recognized  in 
the  horrid  transaction,  vi.  28,  29,  the  fulfilment  of 
Lev.  xxvi.  29,  Deut.  xxviii.  53,  and  was  the  more  ex- 
asperated against  Elisha  in  consequence.  "  Make  win- 
dows in  heaven"  (vii.  2,  19)  alludes  to  Gen.  vii.  11, 
and  is  equivalent  to  saying,  **  Send  a  deluge  of  bread." 
The  law  of  leprosy  was  enforced  even  in  a  time  of 
siege  (vii.  3  ;    comp.  Lev.  xiii.  46;   Num.  v.  2). 

Now,  it  is  not  here  affirmed  that  any  one  of  these 
allusions,  or  all  taken  together,  amount  to  an  invincible 
demonstration  of  the  existence  of  Deuteronomy  and 
of  the  Levitical  Law  before  the  time  of  Elijah  and 
Elisha,  or  that  they  admit  of  no  other  possible  ex- 
planation ;  but  it  is  safe  to  say  that  these  allusions 
are  as  numerous  and  clear,  as  could  reasonably  be 
expected  if  Deuteronomy  and  Leviticus  were  then 
already  known ;  that  no  prejudice  can  possibly  arise 
against  the  common  belief  on  this  subject  from  any 
deficiency  in  such  allusions ;  and  that  the  presump- 
tion which  they  naturally  create  in  its  favor  is  not  to 
be  magisterially  set  aside,  but  only  by  the  production 
of  counter  evidence  of  a  decisive  nature,  and  this  does 
not  exist. 

The  Doctor  tells  us  further  that  "  the  main  thread 
of  the  books  of  Kings  .  .  .  knows  nothing  of  the 
Levitical    legislation."     It  has   always   been   thought 


:o 


306  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

difficult  to  prove  a  negative ;  but  the  critics  do  it 
without  the  sHghtest  trouble.  Any  witness  who  did 
not  see  the  culprit  commit  the  deed  ought,  in  their 
judgment,  to  convince  the  jury  of  his  innocence.  It 
would  certainly  be  very  stupid  in  any  one  to  adduce 
the  absence  of  classical  quotations  from  the  volume 
before  us  in  proof  that  the  Doctor  knows  nothing  of 
the  classics.  He  abstained  from  such  quotations  sim- 
ply because  he  found  no  occasion  to  make  them  in 
the  course  of  his  discussion.  If  the  sacred  historian 
had  no  reason  for  speaking  of  the  distinctive  require- 
ments of  the  Levitical  Law,  the  fact  of  his  not  mention- 
ing them  has  no  significance.  His  silence  respecting 
them  is  no  argument  that  he  was  not  aware  of  their 
existence,  or  that  he  did  not  recognize  their  binding 
authority.  No  adverse  conclusion  can  be  drawn,  un- 
less something  is  positively  said,  which  is  incompatible 
with  the  existence  of  the  Law  or  with  the  writer's 
knowledge  of  its  existence. 

But  do  the  books  of  Kings,  in  fact,  know  nothing  of 
the  Levitical  Law?  The  elaborate  description  of  Solo- 
mon's Temple  and  its  vessels  (l.  Kings  vi.,  vii.) ,  and  the 
entry  into  it  of  the  glory  of  the  LORD  (viii.  lO,  ii), 
presupposes  the  account  of  the  Mosaic  Tabernacle  and 
its  furniture  (Ex.  xxv.  fif.,  xxxvi.  ff.).  The  correspond- 
ence, not  only  in  general  plan  but  in  a  multitude  of 
details,  is  so  exact  and  pervading  that  one  must  of  ne- 
cessity have  been  derived  from  the  other.  The  Tem- 
ple is  either  an  enlarged  Tabernacle,  built  of  more  solid 
materials;  or  else  the  Tabernacle  is  reduced  in  size 
from  the  Temple,  so  as  to  be  capable  of  being  trans- 


ON  THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL.  307 

ported  from  place  to  place.  The  most  radical  critics 
do  not  shrink  from  the  latter  alternative.  They  do 
not  hesitate  to  assert  that  the  account  in  Exodus  of 
the  Mosaic  Tabernacle  is  altogether  fictitious ;  that  it 
is  a  purely  imaginary  structure,  to  which  no  reality 
ever  corresponded  ;  that  its  measures  and  arrangements 
are  mere  deductions  from  the  Temple  of  Solomon. 
But  altogether  apart  from  such  a  wholesale  and  un- 
warrantable challenge  of  the  truthfulness  of  a  narrative, 
which  has  every  appearance  of  being  historical,  and 
has  always  been  so  regarded,  no  motive  has  ever  been 
shown  for  such  a  fiction.  It  must  surely  have  been  a 
most  dreary  exercise  of  the  imagination  to  figure  out 
all  the  boards  and  curtains  and  coverings  and  loops 
and  taches  and  pillars  and  sockets  and  bars  and  hooks 
and  fillets  and  hangings,  and  to  record  them  in  long 
and  wearisome  detail,  as  though  each  minute  particu- 
lar was  of  the  utmost  consequence,  when  in  point  of 
fact  the  whole  thing  was  utterly  baseless ;  and  the 
building,  in  regard  to  which  so  much  pains  was  taken 
to  invent  and  circulate  a  false  account,  had  ceased  to 
exist  ages  before,  and  was  no  longer  of  any  present, 
practical  interest.  But  if  these  details  are  real  and 
genuine,  and  represent  the  actual  Tabernacle  of  Moses, 
then  this  portion  of  the  Levitical  Law,  at  least,  must 
have  been  in  the  possession  not  only  of  the  author  of 
Kings,  but  of  the  architect  of  Solomon's  Temple. 

Further,  the  altar  in  use  before  the  Temple  was 
built  had  horns  (l.  Kings  i.  50,  51,  ii.  28),  and  accord- 
ingly was  conformed  to  the  regulation,  Ex.  xxvii.  2. 
Solomon's  Temple    was    completed    in    the    eighth 


3o8  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

month  of  the  year  (l.  Kings  vL  38)  ;  but  In  order  to 
add  impressiveness  to  its  dedication,  this  was  fixed  at 
the  time  of  the  annual  least  in  the  seventh  month 
(viii.  2).  Jeroboam  changed  the  month  in  the  Northern 
Kingdom,  thus  fixing  the  feast  on  the  fifteenth  day 
of  the  eighth  month  (l.  Kings  xii.  32,  33).  The  proper 
time  for  its  celebration  was  therefore,  according  to 
the  book  of  Kings,  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  seventh 
month,  as  it  is  defined  Lev.  xxiii.  34 ;  Num.  xxix.  12. 
Neither  the  month  nor  the  day  is  named  in  Deuter- 
onomy (see  xvi.  13  ff.)  ;  and  according  to  the  critics 
this  is  one  of  the  later  innovations  of  the  Levitical 
Law,  the  day  of  the  observance  having  previously 
been  free,  and  regulated  by  the  season.  We  are  also 
told  that  there  is  no  indication  of  a  priestly  hierarchy 
in  Deuteronomy,  that  all  Levites  could  be  priests 
and  all  stood  upon  a  level.  But  II.  Kings  xii.  10,  xxii. 
4,  8,  make  mention  of  the  high-priest;  xxiii.  4,  xxv. 
18,  of  priests  of  the  second  order;  and  I.  Kings  viii. 
4  of  priests  and  Levites  as  distinct  classes.  We  also 
read  repeatedly  of  Abiathar  the  priest,  Zadok  the 
priest,  Jehoiada  the  priest,  Urijah  the  priest,  Hilkiah 
the  priest,  who  were  successively  at  the  head  of  the 
sacerdotal  body.  All  this  is  manifestly  governed  by 
the  Levitical  Law.  According  to  Ii.  Kings  xxiii.  9 
the  direction  given  in  Deut.  xviii.  6-Z,  as  the 
Doctor  interprets  it,^  was  disobeyed,  which  is  a  fresh 
reason  for  questioning  the  accuracy  of  his  interpreta- 
tion. (See  above  p.  79.)  But  apart  from  this,  unleav- 
ened bread  is  here  spoken  of  as  the  provision  of 
1  "  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,"  p.  362. 


ON  THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL.  309 

priests ;  of  this  Deuteronomy  says  nothing,  but  we 
find  it  stated  over  and  over  in  Lev.  ii.  10,  11,  vi.  16- 
18,  vii.  10,  X.  12.  In  II.  Kings  xii.  16^  the  trespass 
and  sin-offerings  are  spoken  of,  which  are  pecuHar  to 
the  Levitical  Law;  so  are  the  meat-offerings  (i.  Kings 
viii.  64),  and  the  morning  and  evening  daily  sacrifice, 
and  the  sprinkhng  of  sacrificial  blood  (il.  Kings  xvi. 
13,  15).  King  Uzziah,  when  a  leper,  was  dealt  with 
(11.  Kings  XV.  5)  according  to  the  law,  Lev.  xiii.  46, 
which  is  alluded  to  but  not  given,  Deut.  xxiv.  8. 

So  far,  therefore,  from  the  books  of  Kins^s  know- 
ing  nothing  of  the  Levitical  legislation,  and  accepting 
only  the  standard  of  the  book  of  Deuteronomy,  they 
follow  the  Law  of  Leviticus  whenever  they  have  occa- 
sion to  mention  anything  which  falls  within  the 
scope  of  that  law.  They  show  acquaintance  with  its 
sanctuary,  its  calendar,  its  priesthood,  and  its  ritual. 
That  critic  must  be  hard  to  please  who  asks  for  any- 
thing more. 

When,  in  the  paragraph  already  quoted,  the 
Doctor  finds  allusion  in  ''  the  ancient  law  of  Ex.  xx. 

1  This  passage  speaks  of  "  trespass-offering  money  and  sin-offering 
money."  The  former  admits  of  a  ready  explanation  (Lev.  v,  15-19 -, 
Num.  V,  7,8).  What  is  meant  by  sin-offering  money  is  more  doubtful. 
It  has  been  conjectured  to  be  money  given  to  the  priest  for  the  pur- 
chase of  the  victim,  a  portion  of  which  became  his  perquisite  in.  re- 
turn for  this  service,  or  a  gift  voluntarily  bestowed  upon  the  officiating 
priest  (Num.  v.  10).  But  however  this  may  be,  the  Doctor's  idea,  that 
it  was  a  money-equivalent  paid  by  the  transgressor  for  his  sin,  is  pal- 
pably false.  This  has  no  analogy  in  the  whole  Old  Testament,  is  ab- 
horrent to  all  Israelitish  ideas,  and  is  justly  characterized  by  himself 
as  "  a  gross  case  of  simony  "  ("  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish 
Church,"  p.  251). 


3IO  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

24,"  to  "  the  altars  of  earth  or  unhewn  stone  which 
stand  in  all  corners  of  the  land,"  he  is  plainly  substi- 
tuting his  own  interpretation  of  the  law  for  the  law 
itself.  That  surely  would  not  be  "  closely  modelled 
on  the  religion  of  the  Patriarchs  as  it  is  depicted  in 
in  Genesis ;  "  for  the  Patriarchal  family  was  a  unit  and 
offered  its  worship  at  a  single  altar.  Though  in  their 
wanderings  altars  were  successively  reared  by  them  in 
various  places,  each  was  for  the  time  their  exclusive 
sanctuary.  Nor  does  it  correspond  any  better  with 
the  state  of  things  in  the  time  of  Moses.  The  Ark 
of  Jehovah  then  *'  led  the  march  of  Israel."  The 
Doctor  speaks  of ''  the  first  beginnings  of  [Israel's] 
national  organization  centering  in  the  Sanctuary  of 
the  Ark."  ''The  Sanctuary  of  Jehovah"  was  "the 
final  seat  of  judgment"  (p.  36).  And  he  strenuously 
insists  upon  the  vast  importance  of  the  national  sense 
of  unity  thus  created  in  its  contrast  with  "  a  multitude 
of  local  cults  without  national  significance  "(p.  40). 
If  now  this  law  was  given  to  Moses  at  Sinai,  as  it 
claims  to  have  been  (Ex.  xx.  22  ff.),  and  was  written 
and  acted  upon  by  Moses  himself  (xxiv.  4),  and  spe- 
cific injunctions  were  given  by  him  in  respect  to  it 
(Dcut.  xxvii.  5,  6)  which  were  obeyed  by  his  suc- 
cessor (Josh.  viii.  30,  31,)  and  through  all  this  pe- 
riod, by  the  Doctor's  own  admission,  the  host  of  Israel 
had  but  one  central  Sanctuary,  the  Sanctuary  of  the 
Ark,  and  if,  furthermore,  the  consciousness  of  na- 
tional unity  thus  produced  was  of  vital  consequence  to 
Israel  as  a  people,  and  as  the  people  of  Jehovah,  — 
we  surely  have  a  right  to  assume  that  the  law  is  to  be 


ON  THE   PROPHETS   OF  ISRAEL.  311 

interpreted  in  conformity  with  the  circumstances  in 
which  it  was  enacted  and  with  the  practice  of  Moses 
himself  under  it. 

If,  further,  the  language  of  the  statute  be  examined, 
there  is  nothing  in  it  to  require  the  assumption  that  a 
plurality  of  coexisting  altars  is  intended.  The 
terms  are  in  the  singular  number  throughout  — 
an  altar  of  earth,  an  altar  of  stone,  mine  altar, 
place  ^  (not  ''  places  "  as  in  the  Authorized  Version) 

i  Dr.  Robertson  Smith  (p.  393)  takes  exception  to  the  note  (see 
above,  p.  74)  in  which  this  circumstance  has  been  before  remarked 
upon.  The  collective  use  of  the  noun  in  such  a  construction  is  not 
denied.  But  attention  is  called  to  the  significant  circumstance  that 
where  the  conception  is  that  of  a  coexisting  plurality,  "  all  the  places  " 
is  expressed  in  Hebrew  by  the  plural  noun  (e.  g.  Deut.  xii.  2  ;  i.  Sam. 
vii.  16,  XXX.  31  ;  Ezra  i.  4 ;  Jer.  viii.  3,  xxiv.  9,  xxix,  14,  xl.  12,  xlv.  5; 
Ezek,  xxxiv.  12) ;  while  in  the  other  two  passages,  in  which  this  phrase 
is  used  with  a  singular  noun,  the  reference  is  not  to  places  viewed 
jointly,  but  regarded  successively  (Gen.  xx.  13 ;  Deut.  xi.  24).  The  words 
are  used  in  a  different  sense.  Gen.  xviii.  26.  And  as  to  the  objection 
that  Ex.  xxii.  30  could  have  no  application  to  the  desert,  because  ver. 
29,  with  which  it  is  associated,  could  only  come  into  operation  in 
Canaan,  the  fourth  commandment  was  certainly  operative  in  the 
Wilderness,  though  "  the  stranger  that  is  within  thy  gates  "  looks  for- 
ward to  the  occupancy  of  cities.  The  legislator  from  the  first  con- 
templated the  settlement  of  the  people  in  Canaan,  but  he  did  not  for 
that  reason  leave  them  without  law  in  journeying  through  the  desert. 
Ex.  xxi.  14  undoubtedly  speaks  of  God's  altar  (in  the  singular  number 
again)  as  an  asylum,  while  even  this  must  not  be  suffered  to  screen 
wilful  murderers ;  but  ver.  13,  "  I  will  appoint  thee  a  place  whither  he 
shall  flee,"  just  as  plainly  anticipates  the  subsequent  appointment  of 
cities  of  refuge.  (See  above,  p.  76,  note.)  The  use  of  the  altar  for 
this  purpose  is  here  recognized  as  familiarly  known ;  only  it  is  limited 
to  the  unintentional  manslayer,  and  the  appointment  of  an  additional 
place  of  like  intent  is  promised.  This  promise  is  fulfilled  Num. 
XXXV.  10  ff. ;  Deut.  xix.  i  ff.,  and  the  privilege  of  the  altar  is  not 
withdrawn.     Where  is  the  discrepancy  t 


312  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

—  and  are  quite  consistent  with  the  view  that  but 
one  altar  at  a  time  was  meant  at  each  successive 
place  of  encampment,  or  wherever  God  might  sub- 
sequently appoint.  If  a  multiplicity  of  altars,  as  op- 
posed to  one  common  sanctuary  for  all  Israel,  is 
denoted  by  this  law,  this  cannot  be  inferred  from  the 
language  used.  It  can  only  be  established  by  proving 
that  in  actual  fact  Jehovah  recorded  His  name  at  dif- 
ferent places  simultaneously.  To  what  extent  this 
was  done  by  special  theophanies,  or  separate  altars 
were  allowed  in  abnormal  periods,  has  been  suffi- 
ciently discussed  already.  (See  above  pp.  94  ff.,  pp. 
137  fif.)  The  whole  matter  was  governed  by  fixed 
principles  and  rigidly  confined  within  plainly  marked 
limits.  Unlimited  discretion  was  never  accorded  to 
men  to  build  altars  and  establish  sanctuaries  at  their 
own  pleasure  or  convenience.  And,  apart  from 
supernatural  manifestations  or  extraordinary  emer- 
gencies, there  was  from  Moses  to  Malachi  but  one 
divinely  sanctioned  and  permanent  sanctuary,  the 
Sanctuary  of  the  Ark,  and  but  one  legitimate  altar  of 
sacrifice,  the  altar  in  its  court. 

But,  we  are  told  (p.  393),  "the  climax  of  absurdity 
is  reached  "  when  this  law  of  an  altar  of  earth  or  of 
whole  stones  is  regarded  as  comprehending  the  brazen 
altar  of  the  Tabernacle  and  the  Temple.  It  is  not  easy 
to  see  wherein  the  absurdity  lies.  The  construction 
of  the  altar  remains  unchanged.  It  is  simply  encased 
in  a  frame  overlaid  with  brass,  to  mark  it  as  belonging 
to  the  Tabernacle  Court,  of  which  brass  was  the  domi- 
nant and  characteristic  metal ;   and  likewise  to  suggest 


ON   THE  PROPHETS  OE  ISRAEL.  313 

that  the  altar,  renewed  at  each  station  on  their  march, 
was  still  substantially  the  same  altar,  for  it  had  the 
same  external  covering,  and  stood  in  the  same  sacred 
surroundings.  That  neither  priests  nor  worshippers 
saw  any  "  absurdity "  in  this  appears  from  the  fact 
that  the  altar  continued  to  be  built  of  *'  whole  stones 
according  to  the  law"  in  each  successive  temple, 
and  as  long  as  the  Temple  stood  (i.  Mace.  iv.  47 ; 
Josephus,  Against  Apion,  i.  22  ;  comp.  also  his  Jew- 
ish War,  v.  5,  6). 

The  Doctor,  however  (pp.  110-112),  thinks  himself 
absolved  in  his  discussion  of  the  work  of  the  Prophets, 
from  any  "  detailed  inquiry  as  to  how  much  of  the  Pen- 
tateuchal  Law  was  already  known."  The  Pentateuch, 
even  if  extant,  ''  was  practically  a  buried  book."  The 
question  of  its  Mosaic  authorship  is  accordingly  of  no 
significance  in  the  history  and  religion  of  Israel,  and 
may  be  left  on  one  side  while  attention  is  directed  to 
things  that  "  had  practical  place  and  recognition  in 
Israel." 

*'  We  have  not  found  occasion  to  speak  of  Moses  as  the 
author  of  a  written  code,  and  to  inquire  how  much  his  code 
contained,  because  the  history  itself  makes  it  plain  that  his 
central  importance  for  early  Israel  did  not  lie  in  his  writings, 
but  in  his  practical  office  as  a  judge  who  stood  for  the  people 
before  God,  and  brought  their  hard  cases  before  Him  at  the 
Sanctuary"  (Ex.  xviii.  19,  xxxiii.  9  scq.). 

Can,  then,  the  bare  fact  that  Moses  exercised  the 
office  of  judge,  and  was  the  medium  of  divine  com- 
munications to  the  people,  be  so  important,  and  yet 


314  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

the  judgments  which  he  actually  rendered,  and  the 
messages  which  he  delivered  to  the  people  as  from 
God,  be  of  no  account?  Can  the  tribunal  at  the  Sanc- 
tuary have  been  so  weighty  an  affair,  and  the  re- 
gulations which  governed  its  decisions  not  worth 
considering:?  In  order  to  estimate  the  value  of  that 
tribunal,  and  its  influence  in  shaping  the  current  life  of 
Israel,  precisely  what  we  most  need  to  know  is  what 
was  the  system  of  justice  therein  represented,  what 
sort  of  cases  came  before  it,  and  upon  what  principles 
they  were  settled.  This  will  give  an  insight  into  the 
usages  and  ideas  of  the  people  and  the  management 
of  their  affairs  that  can  be  gained  in  no  other  way. 
The  civil  code  introduced  by  Moses,  and  the  ordinances 
of  worship  appointed  by  him,  furnish  the  needed  start- 
ing-point in  the  study  of  the  institutions  and  life  of 
Israel.  There  is  just  the  same  authority  for  referring 
these  to  Moses  as  there  is  for  believing  that  he  acted 
as  judge  and  leader  of  Israel  in  their  coming  forth 
from  Egypt.  The  whole  subsequent  history  unfolds 
from  this  fixed  point,  is  determined  by  it,  and  cannot 
be  properly  understood  without  it.  The  Pentateuch 
was  not  a  ''buried  book"  because  some  of  its  statutes 
may  not  have  been  rigidly  enforced  in  ah  the  troub- 
lous and  degenerate  periods  that  followed.  The  very 
statutes  that  were  temporarily  obscured  are  needed 
to  set  those  periods  of  defection  in  their  true  light. 
What  would  be  thought  of  that  historian  of  Roman 
Law  who  should  set  aside  all  consideration  of  the 
code  of  Justinian,  because  in  the  disorders  and  dis- 
tractions of  later  ages  some  of  its  provisions  were 


ON  THE  PROPHETS   OF  ISRAEL.  315 

temporarily  overborne,  and  only  slowly  rose  to  full 
recognition  again  in  later  jurisprudence? 

But  the  Doctor  presents  us  with  an  a  priori  argu- 
ment, which  easily  disposes  of  the  whole  matter  and 
obviates  the  necessity  of  a  laborious  examination  into 
the  facts. 

"  It  is  perfectly  clear  that  the  great  mass  of  Levitical  legis- 
lation, with  its  ritual  entirely  constructed  for  the  Sanctuary  of 
the  Ark  and  the  priests  of  the  house  of  Aaron,  cannot  have 
had  practical  currency  and  recognition  in  the  Northern  King- 
dom. The  priests  could  not  have  stultified  themselves  by 
accepting  the  authority  of  a  code  according  to  which  their 
whole  worship  was  schismatic.  .  .  .  The  same  argument 
proves  that  the  code  of  Deuteronomy  was  unknown,  for  it 
also  treats  all  the  Northern  sanctuaries  as  schismatic  and 
heathenish,  acknowledging  but  one  place  of  lawful  pilgrim- 
age for  all  the  seed   of  Jacob." 

And  so  it  might  be  argued  that  no  rogue  would 
ever  stultify  himself  in  a  court  of  justice  by  admitting 
the  validity  of  law^s  which  make  him  a  criminal  and 
pronounce  his  doom.  The  Ten  Tribes  had  undoubt- 
edly the  most  powerful  inducements  to  deny  and  to 
renounce  the  authority  of  the  laws  of  Moses,  if  it  was 
possible  for  them  to  do  so.  But  if  we  find  them  living 
under  these  very  institutions,  only  modified  by  being 
blended  with  their  idolatry,  if  we  find  evidence,  in  their 
departures  from  Mosaic  requirements,  that  they  never- 
theless confess  their  divine  original  and  their  binding 
obligation,  then  the  strength  of  their  motive  to  do 
otherwise  but  renders  the  confession  that  is  wrung 
from   them    more   significant.     The    question  of  the 


31 6  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

genuineness  of  the  Mosaic  legislation  is  all  import- 
ant in  its  bearing  on  all  the  subsequent  stages  of  Israel- 
itish  history;  and  it  is  only  to  be  settled  by  a  direct 
appeal  to  the  facts  in  the  case. 

We  are  referred  in  these  Lectures  (p.  117)  to  two 
chapters  in  the  Bible  as  authority  for  the  state  of 
things  in  the  Northern  Kingdom,  —  Deut.  xxxiii.,  "  the 
so-called  blessing  of  Moses,"  and  Josh.  xxiv.  It  is 
refreshing  to  find  some  firm  footing  in  this  dismal 
quagmire,  to  which  everything  has  been  reduced 
by  the  critics.  And  there  are  two  points  in '  these 
chapters  which  are  well  worthy  of ,  consideration. 
The  priesthood  is  distinctly  attributed  to  Levi  (Deut. 
xxxiii.  8,  10),  and  notwithstanding  this  the  fact  is 
that  in  the  Ten  Tribes  the  priests  were  taken  indis- 
criminately from  all  the  people,  and  ''were  not  of  the 
sons  of  Levi  "  (l.  Kings  xii.  31,  xiii.  33).  And  Josh. 
xxiv.  26  tells  us  of  '*  the  book  of  the  Law  of  God," 
which  was  already  in  existence  in  the  time  of  Joshua, 
for  he  wrote  in  it  an  account  of  that  solemn  day  which 
was  passed  in  Shechem.  So  that  Israel,  halting  be- 
tween Jehovah  and  Baal  in  the  days  of  Elijah,  was 
confessedly  in  possession  of  the  book  of  the  Law  of 
God  and  of  Joshua's  serious  and  tender  admonitions. 

And  here  we  must  join  issue  with  the  statement  on 
page  115:  — 

"  In  the  time  of  Amos  and  Hosea  the  truest  hearts  and 
best  thinkers  of  Israel  did  not  yet  interpret  Jehovah's  dealings 
with  His  people  in  the  light  of  the  Deuteronomic  and  Levitical 
laws  j  they  did  not  judge  of  Israel's  obedience  by  the  princi- 
ple oi  the  one  Sanctuary  or  the  standard  of  Aaronic  ritual" 


ON  THE   PROPHETS   OF  ISRAEL.  31  7 

This  is  not  to  be  decided  magisterially  by  one 
flourish  of  the  pen.  Let  us  put  together  the  scat- 
tered hints  which  these  Prophets  afford  us  on  this 
subject,  that  we  may  obtain,  as  far  as  we  can,  an  accu- 
rate idea  of  the  divine  standard  of  duty  which  then 
prevailed.  According  to  Amos  ii.  4  the  great  crime 
of  Judah,  for  which  a  terrible  penalty  awaits  them  that 
the  Lord  will  not  turn  away,  is  that  *'  they  have  de- 
spised the  Law  of  the  LORD  and  have  not  kept  His 
commandments."  Hosea  (viii.  i)  in  the  name  of  God, 
denounces  swift  vengeance  upon  Israel,  "  because  they 
have  transgressed  My  covenant,  and  trespassed  against 
My  Law."  This  '*  Law  of  Jehovah,"  then,  to  which  both 
these  Prophets  alike  appeal,  was  common  to  both 
kingdoms,  and  both  were  culpable  and  obnoxious  to 
the  severest  judgments  for  violating  it.  In  Hos.  iv.  6, 
according  to  the  Doctor's  own  understanding  of  the 
verse,  the  priests  are  charged  with  having  forgotten 
the  Law  of  their  God ;  and  in  ver.  5  the  Prophets  are 
involved  with  them  in  a  like  condemnation.  "  Thus 
Hosea,  no  less  than  Amos,  places  himself  in  direct 
opposition  to  all  the  leaders  of  the  religious  life  of  his 
nation  "  (p.  156). 

And  yet  both  priests  and  Prophets  are  spoken  of  as 
charged  with  sacred  functions,  and  are  not  the  objects 
of  an  indiscriminate  denunciation.  The  priests  were 
entrusted  with  the  administration  of  the  Law.  It  was 
theirs  to  declare  God's  Law  to  the  people,  and  exercise 
the  highest  judicial  functions  under  it.  Hence,  when 
Hosea  would  by  one  stroke  set  forth  the  extreme  of 
presumptuous  daring  and  hopeless  obduracy  that  pos- 


3l8  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

sessed  the  people,  so  that  it  was  useless  to  labor  lon- 
ger for  their  correction,  he  says  (iv.  4)  *'  Thy  people 
are  as  they  that  strive  with  the  priest."  ^  The  form  of 
expression  is  peculiar  and  highly  significant.  The  cen- 
sure which  he  passes  upon  the  people  is  not  that  of 
resistance  to  the  priesthood  ;  for,  considering  the  char- 
acter of  the  priests,  as  that  is  described  immediately 
after,  such  resistance  might  be  in  many  cases  highly 
commendable.  But  they  are  *'  as  they  that  strive  with 
the  priest;  "  they  are  compared  to  bold  and  reckless 
men,  who  resist  the  officers  of  law,  and  refuse  submis- 
sion to  the  authority  of  the  supreme  tribunal.  It  was 
in  fact  this  prerogative  of  the  priesthood  which  gave 
such  fearful  point  to  the  charge  already  cited,  that 
they  whose  duty  it  was  to  teach  and  to  enforce  the 
Law  had  themselves  forgotten  it,  so  that  the  people 
were  destroyed  in  consequence,  and  God  rejected 
these  unfaithful  priests  from  being  priests  to  Him  any 
longer.  So,  too,  while  the  Prophets  are  rebuked  and 
threatened,  and  there  were  those  to  whom  prophecy 
was  a  trade  and  whose  only  concern  was  to  get  their 
bread  (Am.  vii.  12), — just  as  there  were  those  who 
craved  the  priest's  office  for  a  living  (l.  Sam.  ii.  36), —  ^ 
the  sacred  character  and  functions  of  Prophets  are 
distinctly  set  forth.     They  are  immediate  messengers 

1  The  text  of  this  clause  needs  no  correction,  least  of  all  any  such 
bungling  emendation  as  those  which  the  Doctor  gravely  discusses 
(p.  406).  The  allusion  to  the  priests'  judicial  function,  coupled  with 
the  thought,  which  at  once  presents  itself  to  the  Prophet's  mind,  of 
their  culpable  unfaithfulness  to  this  high  trust,  leads  to  the  denuncia- 
tion ver.  5,  —  the  suppressed  thought,  which  links  vers.  4  and  5,  com- 
ing to  full  expression  in  ver.  6. 


ON  THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL.  319 

of  God,  to  whom  He  makes  confidential  disclosures  of 
all  His  purposes  (Am.  iii.  7),  and  through  whom  He 
declares  His  will  and  purposes  to  men  (Hos.  vi.  5,  xii. 
10).^  Amos  ii.  11,  12  includes  among  God's  distin- 
guishing benefits  to  Israel  His  raising  up  Prophets  of 
their  sons,  and  charges  them  with  the  sin  of  having 
**  commanded  the  Prophets,  saying,  Prophesy  not." 
Amos,  no  doubt,  intends  to  associate  himself  with  the 
Prophets  who  were  thus  obstructed  in  the  perform- 
ance of  their  divine  commission  ;  for,  though  not  by 
regular  profession  a  Prophet,  nor  one  of  the  Sons  of 
the  Prophets,  he  too  had  been  sent  by  God  to  proph- 
esy to  Israel,  and  had  been  interdicted  from  doing  it 
(Am.  vii.  15,  16).  While  Hosea  and  Amos  do  not 
apply  the  term  ''  law "  to  the  -utterances  of  the 
Prophets,  it  might  be,  and  it  was  so  applied ;  in  Isa.  i. 
10,  **  the  Law  of  our  God  "  is  an  equivalent  expression 
to  ''  the  Word  of  the  LORD  "  spoken  by  the  Prophet 
himself.  (See  also  xxx.  9,  10.)  But  that  the  Law 
was  something  more  than  the  oral  instructions  of  the 

1  The  Doctor  tells  us  (p.  182)  :  "The  possession  of  a  single  true 
thought  about  Jehovah,  not  derived  from  current  religious  teaching, 
but  springing  up  in  the  soul  as  a  word  from  Jehovah  Himself,  is 
enough  to  constitute  a  prophet,  and  lay  on  him  the  duty  of  speaking 
to  Israel  what  he  has  learned  of  Israel's  God."  If  he  means  to  efface 
the  distinction  between  the  inspiration  of  the  Prophets  and  the  illu- 
mination enjoyed  by  all  pious  men  who  are  led  to  clearer  views  of 
truth  and  duty  through  their  own  devout  experiences,  enlightened  by 
the  Holy  Ghost, — and  further,  if  he  means  to  deny  to  the  Prophets 
any  direct  and  immediate  commission  from  God  to  s^Deak  in  His  name, 
beyond  the  general  obligation  resting  on  all  to  impart  of  that  which 
they  have  received,  —  then  his  statement  falls  below  the  conception 
entertained  by  Hosea  and  Amos. 


320  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

Prophets  and  the  judicial  decisions  of  the  priests,  dehv- 
ered  from  time  to  time  as  occasion  required,  appears 
from  the  fact  that  they  could  be  charged  with  forget- 
ting it.  There  must,  therefore,  have  been  a  fixed  body 
of  law,  independent  of  and  superior  to  those  who  were 
appointed  to  teach  or  to  administer  it,  which  neither 
priest  nor  Prophet  could  modify  or  set  aside,  and 
which  was  binding  on  them  as  on  the  people. 

The  obligation  of  obedience  resting  on  Israel  is 
further  set  forth  by  representing  this  Law  in  the  light 
of  a  covenant  (Hos.  vi.  7,  viii.  i)  or  solemn  engage- 
ment between  Israel  and  Jehovah,  the  breach  of 
whose  stipulations  is  a  just  ground  of  controversy  to 
Jehovah  with  His  people  (xii.  2),  and  calls  for  the 
exercise  of  His  righteous  judgment  (v.  i,  11,  vi.  5). 
Hosea  (i.  2  fif.)  further  presents  it  under  the  image  of 
the  marriage  relation,  of  which  sacred  bond  their  sin 
was  a  gross  and  shameless  violation.  This  covenant 
union  is  traced  back  to  the  Exodus:  *'  I  am  the  Lord 
thy  God  from  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  thou  shalt  know 
no  god  but  Me"  (Hos.  xiii.  4,  xii.  9;  see  also  xi.  i  ; 
Am.  iii.  i,  2,  ii.  10).  It  is  even  traced  beyond  that 
to  God's  dealings  with  their  pious  ancestor  Jacob 
(Hos.  xii.  3,  4).  The  leader  out  of  Egypt,  to  whose 
charge  the  people  was  committed,  was  a  Prophet 
(ver.  13),  which  implies  that  God  made  known  His 
will  through  him.  And  in  its  infancy  the  nation  cor- 
dially responded  (Hos.  ii.  15).^  The  covenant  be- 
tween Jehovah  and  Israel  was  accordingly  formed  in 

1  For  "  sing,"  in  the  Authorized  Version,  read  "  answer  ;  "  the  ref- 
erence is  to  Ex.  xxiv.  3. 


ON  THE   PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL.  32  I 

the  days  of  Moses ;  and  of  this  there  is,  besides,  mon- 
umental evidence  in  the  existence  of  the  Ark  of  the 
Covenant.  The  giving  of  the  Law  began  with  Moses ; 
whether  he  gave  the  Law  in  full,  or  simply  made  a  be- 
ginning which  was  added  to  and  developed  subse- 
quently, may  be  left  undetermined  for  the  present. 

Of  what  compass  was  this  Law  in  the  time  of  Hosea 
and  Amos?  and  what  did  it  contain?  It  is  observa- 
ble that  neither  of  these  Prophets  thinks  it  necessary 
to  expound  the  requirements  of  the  Law  or  to  argue 
their  obligation.  They  assume  throughout  that  these 
are  well  known  and  their  binding  force  acknowledged. 
They  deal  chiefly  in  charges  of  transgression  and 
threatenings  of  punishment.  We  may  take  it  for 
granted  that  the  sins  with  which  the  people  are 
charged  are  violations  of  this  Law,  and  that  the  vir- 
tues whose  absence  is  deplored  were  enjoined  by  it. 
One  comprehensive  word  used  several  times  by 
Hosea,  and  variously  rendered  "  goodness,"  "  mercy," 
and  *' kindness  "  (Hos.  vi.  4;  see  margin),  embraces 
both   love  to  God   and  love  to  man.^     He   heaps  to- 

1  This  word  is  admirably  expounded  by  Dr.  Robertson  Smith  (p. 
162) :  "  Jehovah  and  Israel  form  as  it  were  one  community,  and  hesed 
is  the  bond  by  which  the  whole  community  is  knit  together.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  distinguish  Jehovah's  hesed  to  Israel,  which  we  would 
term  his  grace,  Israel's  duty  of  hesed  to  Jehovah,  which  we  would  call 
piety,  and  the  relation  of  hesed  between  man  and  man  which  embraces 
the  duties  of  love  and  mutual  consideration.  To  the  Hebrew  mind 
these  three  are  essentially  one,  and  all  are  comprised  in  the  same  cov- 
enant. Loyalty  and  kindness  between  man  and  man  are  not  duties 
inferred  from  Israel's  relation  to  Jehovah ;  they  are  parts  of  that  rela- 
tion ;  love  to  Jehovah  and  love  to  one's  brethren  in  Jehovah's  house 
are  identical." 


322  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

gether  a  number  of  particulars  (iv.  1,2):  "  There  Is 
no  truth,  nor  kindness  (or  piety),  nor  knowledge  of 
God  in  the  land ;  swearing  and  lying  and  killing 
and  stealing  and  committing  adultery ;  they  commit 
violence,  and  blood  toucheth  blood."  It  is  plain  that 
this  Law  must  have  embraced  such  duties  of  man  to 
his  fellow  as  chastity  and  sobriety  (Hos,  iv.  11,  vii.  4, 
5  ;  Am.  ii.  7,  vi.  4-6)  ;  fidelity  to  engagements  (Hos.  x. 
4);  justice,  kindness,  and  truth  (Hos.  x.  12,  13,  xi. 
12 ;  Am.  V.  7,  24,  vi.  12)  ;  upright  dealing  as  opposed 
to  fraud  and  heartless  oppression,  particularly  of  the 
poor  (Hos.  vii.  i,  xii.  6-8;  Am.  ii.  6-8,  iii.  10,  iv.  i, 
V.  II,  viii.  4-6);  and  judicial  integrity  (Am.  v.  10, 
12,  15).  The  Doctor  concedes  (p.  113)  the  exist- 
ence at  this  time  of '' the  Book  of  the  Covenant" 
(Ex.  xxi.-xxiii.).  "The  ordinances  of  this  code 
closely  correspond  with  the  indications  as  to  the  an- 
cient laws  of  Israel  supplied  by  the  older  history 
and  the  Prophets.  Quite  similar,  except  in  some 
minor  details  which  need  not  now  delay  us,  is  an- 
other ancient  table  of  laws,  preserved  in  Ex.  xxxiv. 
These  two  documents  may  be  taken  as  representing 
the  general  system  of  sacred  law  which  had  practical 
recognition  in  the  Northern  Kingdom."  ^ 

^  The  Doctor  adds  in  the  same  sentence  :  "  The  very  fact  that  we 
have  two  such  documents  conspires  with  other  indications  to  make  it 
probable  that  the  laws,  which  were  certainly  generally  published  by 
oral  decisions  of  the  priests,  were  better  known  by  oral  tradition  than 
by  written  books."  We  are  not  now  dealing  with  the  question  whether 
the  Law  was  oral  or  written,  and  simply  remark  that  the  history  clearly 
states  the  mutual  relation  of  these  two  series  of  laws.  The  second  is 
not  a  varying  tradition  of  the  first.     (See  above,  p.  279.)     Moreover, 


ON  THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL.  323 

The  Prophets,  however,  deal  still  more  largely  and 
emphatically  with  the  criminality  of  the  people 
against  Jehovah.  Duties  tow^ard  God  must,  there- 
fore, have  had  a  prominent  place  in  the  Law.  Israel 
is  charged  with  being  grossly  unfaithful  to  her  conju- 
gal relation  to  Jehovah  (Hos.  i.  2,  v.  7,  vi.  7)  and  for- 
saking Him  for  other  lovers  (Hos.  ii.  7  and  passim) ; 
and,  without  a  figure,  with  idolatry  (Hos.  iv.  12,  17, 
viii.  4,  xi.  2,  xiv.  3,8);  a  lack  of  the  true  knowledge 
of  God  (Hos.  iv.  i,  6,  vi.  6)  ;  forgetting  God  (Hos. 
ii.  13,  viii.  14,  xiii.  6);  not  seeking  God  (Hos.  v.  15, 
X.  12  ;  Am.  V.  4,  6) ;  not  waiting  for  Him  (Hos.  xii. 
6)  ;  not  hearkening  to  Him  (Hos.  ix.  17)  ;  rebelling 
against  Him  (Hos.  xiii.  16) ;  profaning  His  holy 
name  (Am.  ii.  7)  ;  not  returning  to  God  after  the  in- 
fliction of  judgments  (Am.  iv.  6,  8-1 1,  where  there  is 
distinct  reference  to  Deut.  iv.  30,  xxx.  2)  ;  backslid- 
ing from  Him  (Hos.  xi.  7,  xiv.  4);  transient  piety 
(Hos.  vi.  4)  ;  presumptuous  trust  in  God  in  their 
wickedness  (Am.  v.  18,  vi.  i);  mixing  themselves 
with  heathen  nations  and  becoming  like  them  (Hos. 
vii.  8)  ;  placing  their  dependence  in  a  heathen  mon- 
arch instead-  of  Jehovah  (Hos.  v.  13,  vii.  11,  viii.  9, 
xii.  I,  xiv.  3).  For  this  they  had  been  visited  with 
famine,  drought,  blasting,  mildew  and  locusts,  pesti- 
lence after  the  manner  of  Egypt  (comp.  Deut.  xxviii. 
27,  60),  the  sword,  and  overthrow  like  that  of  Sodom 
and  Gomorrah    (Am.  iv.  6-1 1  ;    comp.   Deut.   xxix. 

does  tl\e  Doctor  think  that  Ex.  xxxiv.  17  "had  practical  recognition 
in  the  Northern  Kingdom  ?  "  What  becomes,  then,  of  his  argument 
of  the  legitimacy  of  the  golden  calves  ? 


324  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

23).  And  still  heavier  judgments  were  in  store  for 
them:  the  kingdom  should  come  to  an  end  (Hos. 
i.  4;  Am.  ix.  8),  the  land  be  utterly  desolated  (Hos. 
ii.  3,  iv.  3;  Am.  iii.  11-15);  their  idolatrous  sanctu- 
aries destroyed  (Hos.  x.  2,  8;  Am.  iii.  14;  comp. 
Lev.  xxvi.  30),  and  the  people  exiled  (Hos.  ix.  3; 
Am.  V.  27).  See  this  identical  catalogue  of  evils,  Lev. 
xxvi.  14  ff . ;  Deut.  xxviii.  15  ff.  All  this  tends  to 
create  the  impression  that  in  the  Law,  to  which  these 
Prophets  appeal,  Israel's  duty  to  Jehovah  of  worship 
and  service  had  a  greater  proportional  space  accorded 
to  it  than  is  the  case  in  Ex.  xx.-xxiii. 

Was  "  the  principle  of  the  one  Sanctuary  "  included 
in  the  Law  to  which  Hosea  and  Amos  appeal,  and  by 
which  they  "judge  of  Israel's  obedience"?  The 
Northern  sanctuaries  are  separately  and  by  name 
denounced  as  centres  of  iniquity  and  false  worship  by 
both  these  Prophets ;  and,  according  to  Amos  i.  2 
God's  earthly  seat  was  in  Zion  and  Jerusalem.  Hosea 
in  express  terms  exposes  the  iniquity  of  the  golden 
calves,  as  the  Doctor  concedes,  though  he  maintains 
that  this  had  always  before  been  regarded  in  the  Ten 
Tribes  as  a  legitimate  form  of  the  worship  of  Jeho- 
vah, and  sanctioned  by  all  preceding  Prophets,  as 
Elijah,  Elisha,  and  Amos.  That  the  skirts  of  these 
Prophets  were  clear  of  any  complicity  in  this  idol- 
worship  has  already  been  abundantly  shown.  But  it 
is  further  plain,  from  the  language  of  Hosea  himself, 
that  he  is  making  no  innovation  and  announcing  no 
new  doctrine.  His  words  are  not  those  of  a  man 
proclaiming  for  the  first  time  that  what  the  people 


ON  THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL.  325 

had  all  along  considered  right  was  outrageously 
wrong.  He  enters  into  no  argument  with  these  he- 
reditary idolaters  ;  he  refutes  no  objections ;  he  anti- 
cipates no  opposition  to  his  most  startling  statements. 
Confident  of  carrying  the  consciences  and  the  convic- 
tions of  his  hearers  with  him,  he  calls  their  whole 
system  of  worship  by  the  name  of  the  grossest  offence 
known  amongst  men.  Their  service  nominally  paid 
to  Jehovah,  he  declares,  was  really  rendered  to 
Baalim  (ii.  13).  The  indignant  and  contemptuous 
manner  in  which  he  speaks  of  the  calves  (viii.  5,  6, 
X.  5)  and  the  stupidity  of  their  worshippers  (xiii.  2), 
and  warns  them  of  the  wrath  of  God  thus  provoked 
and  the  judgment  that  should  follow,  shows  that 
this  is  not  some  new  light  that  has  but  recently 
dawned  on  his  own  mind ;  but  that  as  the  servant  of 
Israel's  God  he  is  confronting  those  who  were  know- 
ingly transgressors  of  His  holy  Law,  while  they  wil- 
lingly walked  after  a  human  commandment  (v.  11), 
that  of  Jeroboam  the  son  of  Nebat. 

When,  now,  Amos  sharply  contrasts  seeking  Jeho- 
vah and  seeking  Bethel  (v.  4-6),  and  declares  in 
the  strongest  terms  the  loathing  that  Jehovah  feels 
for  their  services  professedly  offered  to  Him  (vers. 
21-23),  the  Doctor  takes  the  meaning  simply  to  be, 
'*  He  is  not  to  be  found  by  sacrifice,  for  in  it  He 
takes  no  pleasure ;  what  Jehovah  requires  of  them 
that  seek  Him  is  the  practice  of  civil  righteousness  " 
(p-  139)-  **The  whole  ritual  service  is  to  Amos  a 
thing  without  importance  in  itself"  (p.  140).  Amos 
"  shows  a  degree   of  indifference   to  all  practices  of 


326  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

social  worship  which  is  not  uncharacteristic  of  an  in- 
habitant of  the  desert"  (p.  167).  A  worship  which 
to  Hosea  was  basely  criminal,  which  was  an  atrocity 
to  be  punished  by  the  direst  judgments,  —  because 
Jehovah  spurned  the  degrading  homage  offered  to 
the  calves,  refusing  to  accept  it  as  rendered  to  Him- 
self,—  cannot  have  been  to  Amos  a  matter  of  indiffer- 
ence. When  Amos  speaks  of  the  god  of  Dan  as  the 
sin  of  Samaria  (viii.  14)  ;  when  he  says  of  Israel's 
multiplied  services,  *'  Come  to  Bethel  and  transgress; 
at  Gilgal  multiply  transgression "  (iv.  4)  ;  when  he 
makes  the  Northern  sanctuaries  the  centres  of  iniquity 
and  corruption  that  pervaded  the  kingdom,  so  that 
in  the  day  that  God  visited  the  transgression  of  Israel 
upon  him,  He  would  also  visit  the  altars  of  Bethel 
(iii.  14),  —  this  is  not  simply  because  he  attached  no 
importance  to  ritual  service.  The  service  there  paid 
was  not  merely  of  no  account,  inadequate  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  the  practice  of  virtue.  It  was  abhorrent. 
It  was  a  nuisance  to  be  abated,  and  which  the  LORD 
would  tolerate  no  longer.  "I  hate,  I  despise  your 
feast-days,  and  I  v/ill  not  smell  in  your  solemn  assem- 
blies. Though  ye  offer  Me  burnt-offerings  and  your 
meat-offerings,  I  will  not  accept  them ;  neither  will  I 
regard  the  peace-offerings  of  your  fat  beasts.  Take 
thou  away  from  Me  the  noise  of  thy  songs,  for  I  will 
not  hear  the  melody  of  thy  viols."  It  is  not  feast-days 
as  such  that  are  thus  abominable.  It  is  not  disgust 
at  offerings  and  an  outward  ceremonial  that  is  here 
expressed.  It  is  "j'd??/r  feast-days  "  and  "j/£?«r  solemn 
assemblies  "  that  the  Lord  detests,  because  the  wor- 


ON  THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL.  327 

ship  itself  was  of  a  debased,  idolatrous  character,  and 
it  was  coupled  with  the  practice  of  iniquity.^ 

The  Doctor  seems  at  a  loss  to  find  a  proper  anti- 
thesis to  these  denunciations  of  Amos.  "  If  we  ask 
what  Amos  desired  to  set  in  the  place  of  the  system 
he  so  utterly  condemns,  the  answer  is  apparently 
very  meagre.  He  has  no  new  scheme  of  Church 
and  State  to  propose  —  only  this,  that  Jehovah  desires 
righteousness  and  not  sacrifice"  (p.  141).  Would 
Amos,  then,  abolish  ritual  worship  altogether?  and 
not  sacrifices  only,  but  '*  songs"  of  praise  as  well? 
Are  there  to  be  no  acts  of  adoration  and  homage,  so- 
cial or  individual?  Would  he  have  no  direct  inter- 
course between  Israel  and  his  glorious  King,  no 
Temple,  no  altar,  no  prayer,  no  thanksgiving,  no  out- 
ward expression  of  devotion,  —  only  "  the  practice 
of  civil  righteousness"?  This  would  be  a  nearer 
approach  to  Confucianism  than  we  can  well  imagine 
in  a  Prophet  of  Israel. 

If,  however,  he  is  not  aiming  at  the  abolition  of  all 
forms  of  worship,  then  it  must  be  urged  again  that 

1  The  Doctor  tells  us  (p.  139):  "  When  Amos  represents  the  na- 
tional worship  of  Israel  as  positively  sinful,  he  does  so  mainly  because 
it  was  so  conducted  as  to  afford  a  positive  encouragement  to  the  in- 
justice, the  sensuality,  the  baibarous  treatment  of  the  poor,  to  which 
he  recurs  again  and  again  as  the  cardinal  sins  of  the  nation."  This 
statement  is  defective,  since  it  does  not  penetrate  deeply  enough  into 
the  source  of  this  moral  degradation.  It  is  not  merely  because  of 
the  manner  in  which  the  worship  was  conducted,  but  because  of  what 
it  was.  It  was  not  the  service  of  the  pure  and  holy  Jehovah,  the 
giver  of  the  moral  law.  It  was  a  bestial  nature-worship,  to  which  the 
name  of  Jehovah  was  attached,  but  in  which  His  attributes  were 
disregarded. 


328  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

the  intense  language  of  Amos  cannot  be  accounted 
for  on  the  hypothesis  of  indifference.  It  betrays  the 
most  powerfully  excited  feeling.  His  emotion  is 
wrought  up  to  the  highest  pitch.  This  could  not 
arise  from  that  which  he  held  to  be  of  small  account, 
but  only  what  was  most  precious  and  most  dear.  He 
cannot  bear  with  the  desecration  of  what  was  so 
sacred,  the  profaning  of  what  was  so  holy.  It  is  not 
that  worship  is  so  little  Avorth,  but  because  it  rises 
in  value  and  in  awfulness  above  everything  beside, 
that  he  cannot  look  with  equanimity  upon  Israel 
converting  the  worship  of  Jehovah  into  a  besotted 
mummery,  the  mimicry  of  devotion.^ 

Place  now  beside  this  that  significant  reference  at 
the  very  beginning  of  his  prophecy  (i.  2)  to  the  fact 
that  the  God  whose  warning  message  he  bears, —  the 
divine  Judge  of  Israel  and  the  nations,  —  utters  His 
wrathful  voice  from  Jerusalem  and  from  Zion.  Jeho- 
vah speaks  from  the  Temple  on  that  holy  mountain ; 
from  thence  He  thunders  with  a  mighty  roar  against 
all  the  wicked  of  the  earth.  If  Jehovah  is  there,  He 
dwells  in  a  Temple  erected  for  sacrifice  and  for  cere- 
monial observance.     He  is  there  for  the  purpose  of 

1  This  consideration  is  of  itself  sufificient  to  show  that  the  interpre- 
tation which  the  Doctor  would  put  upon  Amos  v.  25  cannot  possibly 
be  correct.  It  cannot  mean  that  "  the  Israelites  offered  no  sacrifice 
in  the  Wilderness,  and  yet  Jehovah  was  never  nearer  to  them  than 
there"  (p.  140),  as  an  argument  that  sacrifices  are  of  small  conse- 
quence. The  real  emphasis  in  the  verse  lies  in  the  words  "  unto  me." 
Their  apostasy  from  God  began  even  in  the  Wilderness,  in  idolatries 
perpetrated  there.  And  this  is  no  more  inconsistent  with  Am.  ii.  10 
than  Hos.  ix.  10  is  with  Hos.  ii.  15. 


ON  THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL.  329 

being  worshipped  and  of  receiving  the  adoration 
of  His  subjects.  His  presence  there  is  the  sanction 
of  the  purpose  for  which  the  house  was  built,  and 
for  which  it  was  resorted  to  by  those  that  feared  His 
name.  While  Bethel  and  Gilgal  and  Beersheba  are 
denounced  (v.  5),  as  well  as  the  High  Places  of  Isaac 
and  the  sanctuaries  of  Israel  generally  (vii.  9),  Zion 
was  the  spot  where  Jehovah  might  be  found. 

Add  now  to  this,  that  in  Hosea's  eyes  the  multipli- 
cation of  sanctuaries  is  of  itself  a  sin.  When  Israel 
worships  on  'the  tops  of  mountains  and  upon  the 
hills,  and  under  oaks,  poplars,  and  terebinths  (iv.  13) 
she  acts  the  part  of  an  unfaithful  wife,  who  leaves  her 
lawful  husband  for  the  love  of  strangers.  When  she 
worships  at  Gilgal  and  at  Bethaven  (he  will  not  call 
it  Bethel,  for  it  is  no  longer  the  *'  house  of  God")  she 
does  the  same  (iv.  15).  Snares  are  set  on  Mizpah 
and  Tabor  (v.  i).  Gilgal  is  a  seat  of  detestable 
wickedness  (ix.  15).  Ephraim  hath  multiplied  altars 
to  sin  (viii.  11),  —  each  fresh  altar  not  only  a  fresh 
occasion  of  sin,  but  its  erection  itself  a  sin.  The  vast 
number  of  his  altars  is  also  charged  against  him  in 
X.  I,  and  perhaps  in  xii.  11  likewise;  they  are  as  de- 
void of  all  sacredness  as  ordinary  stone-heaps,  unless 
indeed  the  stone-heaps  represent  the  state  of  utter 
ruin  to  which  they  shall  be  reduced.  Consider  fur- 
ther, that  while  the  LORi:)  declares  that  He  will  no 
more  have  mercy  upon  the  house  of  Israel,  He  will 
have  mercy  upon  the  house  of  Judah,  and  save  them 
by  Jehovah  their  God  (i.  6,  7)  ;  that  for  the  present 
God   refuses  to   recognize  Israel  as  His  people  or  to 


330  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

be  Himself  their  God  (ver.  9)  ;  but  that  hereafter 
Judah  and  Israel  shall  be  joined  again  (ver.  11),  as 
before  the  schism  and  apostasy  of  Jeroboam,  and 
then  (iii.  5)  the  children  of  Israel  shall  return  and 
seek  the  Lord  their  God  and  David  their  king.  And 
can  there  be  a  remaining  doubt  as  to  where  the  true 
place  of  worship  was  in  the  mind  of  Hosea? 

With  all  this  associate  one  more  fact,  and  the  chain 
of  argument  will  be  complete.  The  binding  obliga- 
tion of  "the  principle  of  the  one  Sanctuary"  was 
recognized  by  Hezekiah  (ii.  Kings  xviii.  4,  22),  as  the 
critics  confess,  shortly  after  the  time  of  Hosea,  or 
perhaps  even  before  his  long  ministry  was  ended. 
And  conclusive  proof  has  been  furnished  in  the  pre- 
ceding pages,  as  we  suppose  (see  above,  pp.  85  ff., 
pp.  137  ff.),  that  its  obligatory  character  was  recog- 
nized in  all  periods  of  the  history  of  Israel  from  the 
time  of  Moses  downward.  This  was,  then,  we  may 
affirm  without  hesitation,  an  integral  part  of  the  Law 
recognized  by  Hosea  and  Amos  as  the  standard 
authority  in  both  Israel  and  Judah  in  their  day. 

But,  if  this  point  is  established,  some  further  con- 
sequences follow.  The  fact  that  the  principle  of  the 
one  Sanctuary  was  enforced  by  Josiah  with  greater 
rigor  than  before  is  the  staple  argument  of  the  critics 
for  dating  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  from  his  reign, 
or  shortly  before  it.  If,  however,  that  principle, 
instead  of  being  a  recent  invention  of  "  the  prophetic 
party"  of  that  period,  was  already  standard  law  in 
the  time  of  Hosea,  and  in  fact  had  been  law  in  Israel 
ever  since  the  days  of  Moses,  what  becomes  of  the 


ON  THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL.  331 

critical  argument,  and  what  of  the  conclusion  based 
upon  it? 

Much  of  Deuteronomy  certainly  was  of  ancient 
date.     Dr.  Robertson  Smith  correctly  says  ^ :  — 

"  The  Deuteronomic  Code  is  not  a  mere  supplement  to 
the  First  Legislation.  It  is  an  independent  reproduction 
of  its  substance,  sometimes  merely  repeating  the  older  laws, 
but  at  other  times  extending  or  modifying  them.  It  covers 
the  whole  ground  of  the  old  Law,  except  the  law  of  treason 
(Ex.  xxii.  28)  and  the  details  as  to  compensations  to  be  paid 
for  various  injuries." 

And  he  gives  a  very  serviceable  comparative  table,^ 
showing  "  how  completely  Deuteronomy  covers  the 
same  ground  with  the  First  Legislation."  Now,  ac- 
cording to  the  Doctor's  own  theory,  the  First  Legisla- 
tion, or  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  existed  long  before 
the  time  of  Hosea.  All  this  portion  of  Deuteronomy, 
then,  belonged  in  substance,  if  not  in  form,  to  the  Law 
in  Hosea's  days.  And  in  regard  to  the  remaining 
provisions  of  Deuteronomic  Law,  can  the  critics  point 
out  one  which  was  introduced  between  the  age  of 
Hosea  and  that  of  Josiah?  If  not,  what  good  reason 
can  they  give  for  questioning  that  the  whole  Deuter- 
onomic Law  was  in  the  possession  of  Hosea  and  of 
Amos?  In  fact,  what  good  reason  can  they  give  for 
questioning  that  it  had  been  in  existence  ever  since 
the  days  of  Moses?  The  Doctor  tells  us  (p.  35),  "■  It 
is  difficult  for  us  to  determine  with  precision  how  far 
Moses  in  person  carried  the  work  of  giving  to  Israel 

^  *'  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,"  p.  317. 
2  Ibid.  p.  431. 


332  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

divine  ordinances."  Is  it  not  in  fact  so  difficult  that 
the  safest  way  for  us  is  to  accept  the  exphcit  testi- 
mony of  the  sacred  record,  that  both  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant  and  the  Deuteronomic  Law  were  given  by 
Moses  himself,  confirmed  as  this  is  by  the  uniform 
belief  of  all  post-Mosaic  times  and  by  all  the  tests 
which  we  are  capable  of  applying  to  it.  The  advo- 
cates of  development  may  be  reluctant  to  concede 
this.  But  we  do  not  really  see  what  they  have  to 
stand  upon,  in  refusing  their  assent,  but  their  own 
a  priori  theory.  The  facts,  so  far  as  they  are  capable 
of  being  ascertained,  are  all  the  other  way. 

Had  the  Law,  to  which  Hosea  and  Amos  appeal, 
any  ritual  requirements?  It  will  not  be  necessary  to 
reproduce  here  the  evidence  already  given  (see 
above,  pp.  115,  116)  that  Israel  in  the  time  of  these 
Prophets  had  an  extensive  ceremonial.  But  was  this 
of  divine  obligation?    The  Doctor  reminds  us  that  — 

"  Israel,  like  the  other  nations,  worshipped  Jehovah  at 
certain  fixed  sanctuaries,  where  He  was  held  to  meet  with 
His  people  face  to  face.  The  method  of  worship  was  by 
altar  gifts,  expressive  of  homage  for  the  good  things  of  His 
bestowal,  and  the  chief  occasions  of  such  worship  were  the 
agricultural  feasts,  just  as  among  the  Canaanites.  The  de- 
tails of  the  ceremonial  observed  were  closely  parallel  to  those 
still  to  be  read  on  Phoenician  monuments.  Even  the  tech- 
nical terms  connected  with  the  sacrifice  were  in  great  part 
identical"  (p.  56). 

If  these  heathen  parallels  are  of  any  significance  in 
accounting  for  the  attitude  of  the  Prophets  toward  the 
ceremonial  worship  in   Israel,  it  might  be  supposed 


ON   THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL.  333 

that  they  did  so  in  one  or  the  other  of  two  ways. 
In  the  first  place  Israel's  religious  rites  may  be  con- 
jectured to  have  been  of  heathen  origin  and  imported 
into  the  worship  of  Jehovah  from  the  worship  of 
heathen  divinities,  and  thus  may  have  been  regarded 
as  foreign  to  God's  true  worship  and  offensive  to  Him. 
Or,  in  the  second  place,  it  may  be  imagined  that  these 
rites,  being  common  to  Israel  and  the  heathen,  con- 
tained nothing  that  was  distinctively  characteristic  of 
the  religion  of  Jehovah  in  contrast  with  other  systems, 
and  may  for  this  reason  have  been  considered  a  mat- 
ter of  indifference.  It  was  of  no  account  whether 
men  engaged  in  the  ritual  or  not.  Jehovah  was  to  be 
served  not  by  sacrifice  but  by  righteousness.  Upon 
either  hypothesis  the  bare  fact  that  Hosea  and  Amos 
refer  to  these  ceremonies  as  observed  in  Israel,  would 
not  establish  for  them  a  place  in  the  Law  which  was 
to  these  Prophets  the  standard  of  divine  obligation. 

Now  as  to  the  first  supposition,  it  is  evident  that 
the  ritual  practised  in  their  days  was  not  regarded  by 
the  Prophets  as  heathenish  importations  which  were 
in  themselves  criminal  and  offensive ;  for  in  all  their 
censures  of  Israel's  worship  they  never  intimate  any- 
thing of  the  kind.  On  the  contrary,  Hosea  represents 
sacrifice  by  which  pardon  was  obtained,  and  the 
ephod  by  which  the  will  of  God  was  consulted,  as 
essential  to  the  maintenance  of  Israel's  intercourse 
with  Jehovah ;  so  that  when  he  would  depict  the  peo- 
ple in  the  seclusion  of  the  Exile,  —  awaiting  a  hap- 
pier future,  but  their  relation  to  God  and  to  idols 
both   severed    for  the  present,  —  he  speaks  of  them 


334 


DR,  ROBERTSON  SMITH 


(iii.  4)  as  on  the  one  hand  without  a  sacrifice  and 
without  an  ephod,  and  on  the  other  hand  without  an 
image  and  without  teraphim.  As  the  latter  were  in- 
dispensable instruments  and  accompaniments  of  idola- 
try, so  were  the  former  of  the  true  worship  of  Jehovah. 
When  he  says  (v.  6)  *'  They  shall  go  with  their 
flocks  and  with  their  herds  to  seek  the  LORD,  but 
they  shall  not  find  Him,"  the  antithesis  implies  that 
there  was  reason  to  expect  that  going  with  such  of- 
ferings they  would  find  Him.  The  real  cause  of  their 
failure  is  immediately  added :  "  He  hath  withdrawn 
Himself  from  them."  When  the  Most  High  declares 
(vi.  6)  that  He  desired  ''  the  knowledge  of  God  more 
than  burnt-offerings,"  it  is  implied  that  burnt-offer- 
ings were  desired.  When  their  petitions,  offered  at 
their  sacrificial  festivals,  are  contemptuously  called 
'*  howling  upon  their  beds  "  (vii.  14),  it  was  not  that 
this  was  a  prohibited  mode  of  entreating  His  favor, 
but  because  of  their  rebellion  against  Him  and  that 
they  did  not  cry  unto  Him  with  their  heart.  The 
threatened  captivity  would  be  aggravated  by  their  in- 
ability to  observe  the  laws  of  ceremonial  purity: 
''They  shall  eat  unclean  things  in  Assyria"  (ix.  3). 
The  acceptability  of  drink-offerings  properly  pre- 
sented is  taken  for  granted  (ix.  4) ;  and  sacrifice 
must  have  been  regarded  as  pleasing  to  God,  when  it 
is  made  the  symbol  of  praise :  "  So  will  we  render 
calves,  our  lips  "  (xiv.  2).  So  that  when  their  pre- 
dicted shame  and  disappointment  is  attributed  to 
their  sacrifices  (iv.  19),  it  is  not  because  sacrifices  are 
in  themselves  criminal,  but  theirs  are  not  what  sacri- 


ON  THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL.          335 

fices  ought  to  be.  Amos  speaks  of  it  as  a  divine 
favor  to  Israel  that  their  sons  were  led  to  take  the 
Nazarite  vow  (ii.  ii),  and  reproaches  the  people  for 
a  breach  of  the  ceremonial  in  giving  them  wine  to 
drink  (ver.  12),  and  in  adding  leaven  to  their  thank- 
offering  (iv.  5).  And  if  Jehovah  dwells  in  Zion 
(i.  2)  He  necessarily  sanctions  that  form  of  worship, 
for  which  His  house  on  Zion  was  expressly  built. 

Sacrifice  as  such  is  not  offensive  to  God,  therefore ; 
and  the  warmth  of  the  language  of  Amos  regarding 
it  has  already  shown  us  that  it  is  not  a  matter  of  in- 
difference. It  must,  consequently,  have  been  es- 
teemed obligatory;  and,  as  the  intensity  of  the 
Prophet's  feelings  with  regard  to  it  reveals,  the  ob- 
ligation must  have  been  so  solemn  and  imperative 
that  a  dereliction  of  duty  in  this  particular  awakened 
the  most  intense  indignation.  There  is  no  escape 
from  the  conclusion  that  the  developed  ritual  of  their 
day  was  enjoined  in  the  Divine  Law. 

And  if  this  Law  contained  all  that  they  describe,  it 
must  have  contained  much  more ;  for  their  allusions 
are  merely  incidental,  and  not  made  with  any  view  of 
covering  the  entire  round  of  required  observance  ;  and 
there  is  the  greater  reason  to  believe  that  this  was  the 
case,  because  the  scope  and  tenor  of  their  teaching 
was  mainly  directed  to  a  different  matter,  —  not  so 
much  to  the  forms  of  worship,  with  which  the  people 
were  sufficiently  familiar,  as  to  the  spirit  of  piety 
which  should  animate  them,  and  the  life  of  upright- 
ness which  should  accompany  them.  And,  further,  a 
Law  containing  these  particulars  must  have  likewise 


336  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

included  other  things  which  they  necessarily  imply. 
If  there  were  priests  and  offerings  and  tithes  and  dis- 
tinctions of  clean  and  unclean,  there  must  have  been 
specifications  under  each  of  these  heads,  to  enable  the 
people  to  act  intelligently  with  regard  to  them,  and 
the  ministers  of  religion  to  decide  the  questions  which 
would  be  constantly  arising  about  them.  There  must 
have  been  rules  regulating  the  support  of  the  priests 
and  the  contributions  of  the  people.  Directions  must 
have  been  given  with  some  detail  as  to  the  ritual  to 
be  observed  in  different  kinds  of  sacrifice,  and  what 
were  proper  occasions  for  their  presentation.  And 
so  in  regard  to  other  matters.  The  particulars  posi- 
tively stated  by  the  Prophets  not  only  justify  but 
compel  the  assumption  of  an  extended  ceremonial 
Law.  These  few  hints  and  allusions  do  not  of  course 
enable  us  to  determine  all  Its  contents  in  detail.  But 
all  these  allusions  accord  with  the  Levitlcal  Law  of  the 
Pentateuch.  They  are  just  such  as  might  be  ex- 
pected if  that  Law,  in  its  full  extent,  was  in  the  hands 
of  these  Prophets.  There  is  not  one  statute  of  that 
Law  which  may  not  have  been  in  it  then,  so  far  as  we 
can  gather  from  the  intimations  given  by  Hosea  and 
Amos,  or  so  far  as  we  can  infer  from  contemporane- 
ous or  subsequent  history.  They  must  have  pos- 
sessed the  Levitlcal  Law  as  we  now  have  it,  or  one  so 
closely  resembling  it  that  no  critic  can  point  out 
a  single  particular  in  which  it  must  have  differed 
from  it.^ 

1  As  a  further  suggestion  of  the  source  of  this  ritual,  it  may  be 
observed  that  the  usage  of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  alluded  to  in 


ON  THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL.  337 

So  that  Prof.  Rudolph  Smcnd,^  though  an  advocate 
of  Graf's  hypothesis,  uses  the  following  language :  — 

'*  That  purity  and  holiness,  and  the  corresponding  lustra- 
tions and  atoning  sacrifices,  must  at  all  times  have  played  a 
great  part  in  Israelitish  worship,  and  this  [worship]  must,  in 
the  Temple  of  Jerusalem,  have  had  essentially  the  form  which 
is  presented  in  Leviticus,  cannot  be  denied,  even  though  the 
casual  intimations  of  the  older  prophetical  writings  do  not 
suffice  to  prove  it.  For  this  reason  we  cannot  see  what  es- 
sential alterations  the  conceptions  hitherto  entertained  of  the 
inner  development  of  religion  in  Mosaism  must  undergo, 
even  if  a  few  particulars  should  be  shown  to  be  post-exilic." 
"  Accordingly  we  do  not  know  what  objection  can  be  made 
to  the  earlier  composition  of  Leviticus  on  the  ground  of  the 
older  prophetical  writings." 

There  is  no  reason  in  fact  why  the  Levltical  Law 
may  not  have  been  given  by  Moses,  except  the  fig- 
ment of  development.  There  is  nothing  but  this 
philosophical  theory,  unsupported  by  any  Biblical 
facts,  to  outweigh  the  positive  and  repeated  declara- 
tions contained  in  Leviticus  itself — and  accredited 
to  us  by  the  testimony  of  all  subsequent  ages, 
through   which    it   has    been    handed    down   and  by 

IIos.  xii.  9,  finds  its  explanation  neither  in  the  Book  of  the  Covenant 
nor  in  Deuteronomy,  but  only  in  Lev.  xxiii.  42. 

1  In  his  elaborate  and  extremely  able  article  "  On  the  Stage  of  De- 
velopment of  the  Religion  of  Israel  presupposed  by  the  Prophets  of 
the  Eighth  Century,"  in  the  "  Studien  und  Kritiken  "  for  1S76,  pp.  655, 
661.  This  was  written  shortly  after  the  appearance  of  Duhm's  "  The- 
ology of  the  Prophets,"  and  chiefly  with  the  view  of  pointing  out  the 
serious  errors  of  that  work.  I  have  been  largely  indebted  to  the  sug- 
gestions of  this  article  in  the  preceding  discussion. 

22 


338  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

which  it  was  esteemed  most  sacred  —  that  these  laws 
were  announced  by  Moses  as  divinely  communicated 
to  him.  That  the  absence  of  these  ritual  laws  from 
Deuteronomy  cannot  be  urged  in  support  of  the  the- 
ory, as  though  Leviticus  must  be  the  development  of 
a  later  age,  is  also  confessed  by  Smend :  — 

"  If  a  law-book,  which  professedly  aims  to  give  a  complete 
order  of  the  cultus,  speaks  of  many  things  about  which 
another,  which  has  no  such  design,  is  silent,  it  nevertheless 
does  not  follow  that  the  former,  on  account  of  the  greater 
copiousness  of  its  contents,  must  belong  to  a  later  time,  in 
which  the  worship  was  further  developed  "  (p.  654).^ 

We  inquire  further,  was  the  Law,  of  which  Hosea 
speaks,  written  or  oral?  The  usage  of  the  period  is 
very  clearly  shown  by  his  contemporary  Isaiah,  who 
speaks  of  it  as  a  matter  of  course  that  enactments 
were  committed  to  writing.  ''  Woe  unto  them  that 
decree  unrighteous  decrees,  and  to  the  scribes  that 
write  grievousness  "  (Isa.  x.  i).  The  fact  that  Hosea 
and  Amos  wrote  their  prophecies  not  only  implies  an 
already  existing  literature,  which  is  besides  sufficiently 
attested  in  other  ways ;  but,  inasmuch  as  they  were 
designed  to  enforce  the  divine  Law,  and  were  them- 
selves regarded  as  a  supplementary  Law  of  the  Lord 
(Isa.  i.  10),  if  they  were  reduced  to  writing,  it  must 
have  been  because  this  was  likewise  the  case  with  the 

^  Dr.  Robertson  Smith  must  acknowledge  the  cogency  of  what  is 
here  said  by  Smend,  since  he  himself  considers  the  aim  of  Deuteron- 
omy to  be  different  from  that  of  Leviticus.  See  the  passage  cited 
from  '*  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,"  in  note  2,  page  76, 
above. 


ON  THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL.  339 

code  to  which  they  were  virtually  annexed.  It  was 
customary  at  that  time  to  write  whatever  was  to  be 
carefully  preserved  (Isa.  viii.  i,  xxx.  8).  Samuel 
wrote  the  manner  of  the  kingdom  (l.  Sam.  x.  25). 
David  had  a  recorder  and  a  scribe  among  the  chief 
officers  of  his  court  (ll.  Sam.  viii.  16,  17,  xx.  24,25); 
so  had  Solomon  (l.  Kings  iv.  3)  and  subsequent  kings 
(11.  Kings  xii.  10,  xviii.  18).  The  commission,  appointed 
by  Joshua  to  divide  the  land,  made  their  report  in 
writing  (Josh,  xviii.  9).  In  the  song  of  Deborah, 
whose  antiquity  is  universally  acknowledged,  scribes 
marshal  the  troops  (Judg.  v.  14).  Writing  was  in 
familiar  use  in  ordinary  matters.  David  wrote  a  let- 
ter about  Uriah  (ll.  Sam.  xi.  14,  15),  Jezebel  about 
Naboth  (l.  Kings  xxi.  8,  9),  the  king  of  Syria  about 
Naaman  (ii.  Kings  v.  5-7),  Jehu  about  Ahab's  sons 
(11.  Kings  x.  i).  Lots  were  inscribed  (Num.  xvii.  2; 
Lev.  xvi.  8)  ;  writing  by  the  priest  was  part  of  the  cere- 
monial in  the  jealousy-offering  (Num.  v.  23)  ;  and  an 
old  Canaanitish  city  bore  the  name  of  Kirjath-sepher, 
(Book-town).  The  law  of  divorce  (Deut.  xxiv.  i)  im- 
plies that  men  generally  were  able  to  write.  Gideon  re- 
quired a  young  man,  taken  at  random,  to  write  out  for 
him  the  princes  of  Succoth  (Judg.  viii.  14;  see  also  Isa. 
x.  19).  In  such  a  state  of  things  it  would  be  utterly 
unaccountable  if  the  Law,  which  was  held  to  be  of  di- 
vine authority  and  believed  to  have  emanated  from 
God  Himself,  which  lay  at  the  foundation  of  public 
justice  and  regulated  public  worship,  was  suffered  to 
remain  unwritten  and  exposed  to  all  the  risks  of  oral 
transmission. 


340  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

The  Ten  Commandments  were  not  only  written  but 
engraved  in  stone  in  the  hfetime  of  Moses  himself.  In 
Josh,  xxiv.,  to  which  we  are  referred  (p.  Ii8)  for  a 
reliable  exposition  of  Israelitish  views,  it  appears 
(vers.  25,  26)  that  Joshua  at  once  wrote  the  statute 
and  ordinance  which  he  gave  to  the  people  in  She- 
chem ;  and  further  that  "  the  book  of  the  Law  of  God  " 
was  already  in  existence  at  that  time.^  The  Doctor 
himself  concedes  (p.  113)  that  there  were  ''ancient 
laws  "  which  had  "  currency  in  a  written  form ;  "  only 
he  tells  us  that  they  must  be  sought  not  in  Deuter- 
onomy nor  in  Leviticus,  but  '*  in  other  parts  of  the 
Pentateuch,  particularly  in  the  Book  of  the  Covenant 
(Ex.  xxi-xxiii.)."  And  while  he  asserts  (p.  1 14)  that 
*'  neither  Hosea  nor  Amos  alludes  to  an  extant  written 
Law,"  he  adds  that  *'  this  fact  does  not  prove  that  writ- 
ten laws  did  not  exist."  When,  therefore,  Hosea  (viii. 
12),^  speaking  in  the  name  of  God,  says  in  express 
terms,  ''  I  write  to  him  the  ten  thousand  precepts  of 
My  Law ;  they  have  been  counted  as  a  strange  thing," 

1  The  hasty  inference  that  this  chapter  "  speaks  without  offence  of 
the  sacred  tree  and  sacred  stone  that  marked  this  great  Northern  sanc- 
tuary, and  is  therefore  quite  ignorant  of  the  Deuteronomic  Law,"  is 
shown  to  be  invalid,  p.  162,  above. 

2  The  Doctor  says,  "Hos.  viii.  12  is  mistranslated  in  the  Authorized 
Version."  If  this  is  to  be  settled  by  confident  assertion  we  may  bal- 
ance his  statement  by  the  contrary  one  of  Professor  Smend  (p.  633  of 
the  article  before  cited),  whom  we  may  without  disrespect  presume 
that  the  Doctor  will  admit  to  be  his  peer  in  Hebrew  learning,  (See 
above,  p.  114,  note).  Smend  (p.  637)  thinks  that  there  were  several 
written  collections  of  laws ;  but  of  this  there  is  no  evidence.  Hosea 
and  Amos  speak  of  but  one  Divine  Law ;  and  their  words  leave  no  room 
for  the  supposition  of  various  rival  codes  with  conflicting  statutes. 


ON  THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL.  34 1 

this  is  just  such  a  declaration  as  the  facts  ah'eady  re- 
viewed prepare  us  for  and  warrant  us  in  crediting. 
Tlie  Law  known  to  Hosea  and  Amos  was  an  extensive 
code,  embracing  a  muhitude  of  requirements,  and  it 
was  in  written  form ;  and  aUhough  transgressed  as 
though  it  were  something  foreign  to  the  people,  and 
which  had  no  claim  upon  them,  it  had  nevertheless 
proceeded  from  the  Lord  Himself. 

One  more  question  remains :  Who  wrote  this  Law, 
to  which  Hosea  and  Amos  attach  undoubted  divine 
authority,  and  upon  which  they  base  all  their  denun- 
ciations ?  We  have  a  right  to  ask,  and  to  demand  an 
answer,  for  it  is  universally  allowed  to  be  one  of  the 
great  legal  systems  of  the  world.  Such  a  body  of  law 
never  grew  up  by  accident.  It  is  not  the  aggregate  of 
judicial  decisions  rendered  in  the  course  of  ages,  at 
various  tribunals  by  successive  judges.  In  that  case 
there  would  necessarily  be  conflicting  and  incoherent 
statutes,  and  the  bare  record  of  such  decisions  would 
be  a  tangled  wilderness  of  disconnected  utterances. 
Even  if  resting  ultimately  on  such  decisions,  it  must 
have  been  carefully  codified.  It  is  a  systematic  body 
of  law,  based  on  great  fundamental  principles,  which 
are  carried  out  to  their  logical  results  in  a  consistent 
and  masterly  manner.^  Every  part  of  it  evidences 
clear  thought,  a  high  faculty  of  administration,  and 
comprehensive  views.     Who  produced  this  body  of 

1  If,  as  has  sometimes  been  alleged,  some  of  these  institutions  — 
as,  for  example,  the  Year  of  Jubilee  —  were  merely  theoretical,  and 
never  came  into  practical  operation,  this  but  adds  to  the  evidence  that 
the  whole  sprang  from  one  constructive  mind. 


342  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

law,  or  who  digested   it    and   reduced  it  to    order? 
Whose  thought  reigns  in  the  whole? 

The  critics  have  felt  the  pressure  of  this  question, 
and  sought  at  one  time  to  fasten  Deuteronomy  upon 
Jeremiah,  as  they  have  assigned  Leviticus  to  Ezra. 
But  they  have  themselves  abandoned  the  former  as 
untenable  ;  and  even  those  who  allege  that  Leviticus  in 
its  present  form  was  written  by  Ezra,  must  concede  that 
the  chief  provisions  of  that  Law  were  much  older.  Both 
of  these  codes  must  have  been  substantially,  at  least, 
and  in  their  main  features,  prior  to  Hosea  and  Amos, 
—  long  prior,  for  the  Law  of  which  these  Prophets 
speak  was  no  recent  production,  no  modern  innovation, 
but  the  old,  established,  authoritative  Law.  Could  its 
author  have  been  David?  Of  his  reign  we  have  a 
full  account,  —  of  his  enterprises,  of  the  measures 
which  he  carried  into  effect,  of  his  schemes  of  govern- 
ment and  of  worship.  But  there  is  no  record  of  his 
having  prepared  or  introduced  any  such  body  of  law; 
this  is  in  fact  not  shaped  upon  the  theory  of  a 
kingly  government;  and  later  ages  never  suggest  that 
it  is  to  be  referred  to  him.  Could  it  have  been  Samuel, 
the  great  reformer,  prophet,  and  judge?  But  the 
chaotic  period,  in  which  he  lived  and  labored,  is  just 
the  one  in  which  these  laws  were  more  in  abey- 
ance than  in  any  other.  Is  the  great  legislator  of 
Israel,  then,  buried  in  complete  oblivion,  his  name 
forgotten  quite,  and  no  tradition,  however  faint,  pre- 
served respecting  him?  Did  the  master-mind  that 
shaped  these  laws  and  institutions,  which  are  the 
wonder  of  all  who  study  them,  leave  no  impress  of 
himself  upon  his  nation  and  his  age? 


ON  THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL.  343 

One  is  involuntarily  reminded  of  the  story  which 
used  to  be  told  of  the  Englishman  making  his  first 
journey  in  France,  who  innocently  inquired  of  one 
who  sat  next  him  in  the  coach,  "  Whose  are  these 
elegant  grounds  and  buildings  that  we  are  passing?" 
The  bewildered  native,  ignorant  of  English,  simply 
replied,  '*  Monsieur,  je  ne  sais  pas."  Accepting  this 
as  the  real  name  of  the  owner  of  this  magnificent  es- 
tate, the  Englishman  repeated  his  question  from  time 
to  time,  as  fresh  villas  came  into  view,  receiving  uni- 
formly the  same  response.  At  length,  astonished  at 
such  vast  possessions  belonging  to  one  proprietor,  he 
exclaimed,  ''  Monsieur  Je-ne-sais-pas  must  be  a  very 
rich  man."  And  the  Unknown,  to  whom  the  critics 
would  introduce  us,  must  be  a  man  without  his  equal 
in  the  whole  history  of  Israel.  Yet  he  has  himself 
completely  vanished  out  of  history,  and  left  no  trace 
of  his  existence,  no  memory  even  of  the  age  in  which 
he  lived.  Nay,  by  the  strangest  of  all  freaks  of  for- 
tune, a  unanimous,  persistent,  and  unvarying  tradition 
has  confounded  this  commanding  spirit,  this  unique 
legislator,  with  a  rude  chieftain  who  never  gave  any 
laws,  so  far  as  the  critics  know,  except  in  so  far  as  he 
decided  petty  disputes  between  his  followers,  and 
whose  only  distinction  is  that  of  having  led  a  horde  of 
undisciplined  nomads  out  of  bondage  into  a  desert 
many  centuries  before. 

Is  it  the  whole  history  of  Israel  that  is  at  fault,  or  is  it 
only  that  the  critics  have  been  dreaming?  Possibly 
the  real  Moses  of  history  may  after  all  have  been  quite 
different  from  the  fictitious  personage  substituted  for 


344  ^^'  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

him  by  the  critics.  And  in  the  adopted  son  of  Pha- 
raoh's daughter,  who  intermarried  with  the  Egyptian 
priesthood  and  was  learned  in  all  the  wisdom  of  Egypt, 
who  was  fired  with  an  enthusiastic  attachment  to  his 
people  and  their  God  and  was  inspired  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  —  the  great  commander  and  organizer  who 
shaped  the  institutions  of  his  nation  and  impressed  his 
own  ideas  ineradicably  upon  their  entire  subsequent 
history,  — we  may  find  a  rational  and  sober  answer  to 
our  question,  which  else  must  remain  unanswered  or 
land  us  in  the  most  incredible  of  paradoxes. 

The  critics  will  smile  incredulously  at  the  suggestion 
of  what  they  are  pleased  to  call  the  traditional  view, 
as  though  it  were  some  unfounded  opinion,  which  has 
come  to  be  believed  merely  by  dint  of  constant  repe- 
tition, and  which  accordingly  has  no  claim  upon  the 
faith  of  candid  and  honest  inquirers  in  comparison 
with  the  so-called  critical  or  scientific  view,  and  is  now 
only  held  in  ignorance  or  defiance  of  advancing  light. 
But  let  us  understand  the  sort  of  tradition  on  which  it 
rests.  The  Pentateuchal  Law  claims  in  the  most  un- 
ambiguous manner  to  have  been  given  and  recorded 
by  Moses.  The  general  character  of  the  legislation, 
and  the  terms  in  which  it  is  couched,  accord  with  this 
claim.  Its  truth  is  further  vouched  for  in  the  most 
direct  and  positive  manner  in  the  history  of  his  trusted 
attendant  and  successor  Joshua  (i.  7,  8,  viii.  31-34,  xxii. 
5,  xxiii.  6) ;  also  by  xxiv.  26,  which  the  critics  with  un- 
wonted clemency  suffer  to  stand  ;  further  by  Judg.  iii.  4 ; 
I.  Kings  ii.  3  ;  II.  Kings  x.  31,  xiv.  6,  xvii.  37,  xviii.  6,  12, 
xxi.  8,  xxii.  8,  xxiii.  24,  25,  not  to  speak  of  numerous 


ON  THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL.  345 

testimonies  of  later  date.  Tlie  history  and  legislation 
of  the  Pentateuch  lies  at  the  basis  of  all  the  subsequent 
history  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  presupposed  in 
the  Psalms.^  It  is  presupposed  in  the  Prophets. 
Moses'  authorship  has  the  explicit  sanction  of  our 
blessed  Lord  Himself  The  prior  existence  of  the 
Pentateuch  is  shown  by  its  being  so  interwoven  with  all 
subsequent  portions  of  the  history  and  literature  of 
Israel  that  it  cannot  be  torn  from  it  without  the  de- 
struction of  the  whole.  It  is  upon  this  immovable 
foundation  that  the  traditional  view  securely  reposes. 
The  tradition  is  imbedded  in  the  Scriptures  from  first 
to  last,  and  can  only  be  surrendered  when  the  inspired 

1  No  prominence  has  been  given  in  any  of  the  preceding  discus- 
sions to  the  testimony  rendered  by  the  Book  of  Psalms  to  the  truth  of 
the  Pentateuch,  and  to  the  divine  authority  as  well  as  the  Mosaic  origin 
of  its  institutions,  for  the  simple  reason  that  the  critics  exercise  the 
same  right  of  peremptory  challenge  in  regard  to  unwelcome  witnesses 
that  Anglo-Saxon  law  allows  in  the  case  of  jurors  deemed  unfriendly. 
The  titles  of  the  Psalms  are  set  aside  without  ceremony ;  and  each 
individual  Psalm  is  arbitrarily  assigned  to  whatever  date  best  suits  the 
critical  theory  which  chances  to  be  in  vogue  at  the  time.  Under  the 
operation  of  this  rule  the  Psalter  becomes  merely  the  hymn-book  of 
the  Second  Temple  ;  the  great  mass  of  the  Psalms  are  reckoned  post- 
exilic,  if  not  Maccabean;  and  nothing  is  allowed  to  be  Davidic  until 
the  critics  have  first  satisfied  themselves  by  a  thorough  search  that  it 
contains  nothing  capable  of  being  used  against  them.  In  fact  it  has 
been  discovered  that  the  safest  course  is  to  exclude  David  from  the 
Psalter  altogether,  and  to  deny  to  him  any  devotional  composition  in 
the  proper  sense,  allowing  to  him  only  "  sportful  forms  of  uncon- 
strained mirth."  "  Melodies  of  the  Temple  service  were  borrowed 
from  the  joyous  songs  of  the  vintage,  and  so  it  was  possible  that 
David  should  give  the  pattern  alike  for  the  songs  of  the  Sanctuary  and 
for  the  worldly  airs  of  the  nobles  of  Samaria."  ("The  Old  Testament 
in  the  Jewish  Church,"  p.  205).  Accordingly,  any  argument  ex  concessis 
from  the  Psalms  is  out  of  the  question. 


346  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

volume  itself  is  abandoned  as  untrustworthy,  and  Jesus 
ceases  to  be  trusted  as  an  infallible  teacher.  When 
progress  means  marching  over  such  a  precipice  as 
this,  sensible  men  will  be  apt  to  call  a  halt,  and  prefer 
to  abide  on  the  terra  firma  of  tradition  a  little  longer, 
rather  than  adventure  themselves  upon  the  cloudland 
which  lies  beyond. 

Besides  Elijah  and  Elisha,  who  have  already  been 
spoken  of,  the  Prophets  whose  work  is  particularly 
discussed  in  these  Lectures  are  Hosea  and  Amos  in 
the  Ten  Tribes,  Isaiah  and  Micah  in  Judah.  The  aim 
of  the  whole  is  to  exhibit  them  in  their  individual 
character  and  their  mutual  relations,  and  in  their  rela- 
tions to  the  times  in  which  they  lived.  What  is  known 
of  each  Prophet  is  briefly  sketched,  and  the  specific 
character  of  his  times  depicted,  and  the  bearing  of 
this  upon  his  ministry  is  shown;  special  traits  are 
pointed  out,  which  distinguish  the  teaching  or  mode 
of  thought  of  each  of  these  Prophets  ;  and  the  differ- 
ent aspects,  under  which  they  severally  set  forth  the 
proximate  or  the  ultimate  future  as  they  conceive  it, 
are  indicated  and  contrasted  with  one  another.  In 
all  this  there  is  much  that  is  valuable  and  suggestive. 
The  chief  occasion  of  regret  is  that  the  bias  derived 
from  his  critical  prepossessions  inclines  him  at  every 
point  to  reduce  the  religious  meaning  of  the  Prophets 
to  a  minimum,  to  foist  upon  them  inaccuracies  with 
which  they  are  not  chargeable,  and  to  represent  them 
as  in  irreconcilable  conflict,  because  of  those  differ- 
ences in  their  portraiture  by  which  they  really  supple- 
ment and  complete  each  other. 


ON  THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL.  347 

It  illustrates  the  facility  with  which  the  drift  of 
events  can  be  comprehended  after  they  have  actually 
taken  place,  that  Dr.  Robertson  Smith  can  see  no  evi- 
dence of  prophetic  foresight  in  the  disclosures  of 
Amos.  "The  most  ordinary  political  insight,"  he 
tells  us  (p.  131),  could  have  seen  the  danger  which 
threatened  Israel  from  Assyria;  '' and  what  requires 
explanation  is  not  so  much  that  Amos  was  aware  of  it 
as  that  the  rulers  and  people  of  Israel  were  so  utterly 
blind  to  the  impending  doom."  But  it  is  obvious 
that  Amos  claims  no  political  shrewdness  above 
those  whom  he  addresses.  He  points  to  no  political 
causes  that  are  at  work;  he  makes  no  political  de- 
ductions. It  is  not  from  this  quarter  that  his  inspira- 
tion proceeds.  The  one  thought,  that  possesses  his 
mind,  is  that  of  the  moral  causes  which  are  at  work. 
Israel  has  sinned  and  Jehovah  has  sent  him  to 
announce  the  penalty.  The  Doctor  says,  (p.  129,)  : 
**  It  is  not  Israel's  sin  that  brings  him  forward  as  a 
preacher  of  repentance ;  but  the  sound  of  near  de- 
struction encircling  the  land  constrains  him  to  blow 
the  alarm."  Precisely  the  reverse  is  true,  as  appears 
from  the  whole  tenor  of  the  prophecy.  The  en- 
croachments of  Assyria  had  not  yet  affected  Israel. 
The  Northern  Kingdom  had  never  been  more  pros- 
perous, and  there  seemed  to  be  no  reason  to  question 
the  stability  of  this  prosperity.  Even  after  Assyria 
had  pushed  its  conquests  westward,  until  Damascus 
was  overthrown,  Israel's  ancient  rival  and  enemy, 
politicians  still  thought  that  Israel  might  be  secure 
and  prosperous  in  alliance  with  or  in  nominal  subjec- 


348  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

tion  to  the  Great  King.  They  were  chiefly  divided 
upon  the  question  which  of  the  rival  empires,  Assyria 
or  Egypt,  was  the  safer  ground  of  dependence.  But 
through  all  the  fluctuating  schemes  of  politicians,  and 
their  alternate  hopes  and  fears,  the  steadfast  word  of 
the  Prophet  went  on  to  sure  accomplishment.  And 
so  did  the  prediction  of  Hosea  (i.  6,  7),  which  no 
degree  of  political  insight  could  have  dictated,  that 
while  Assyria  should  overthrow  the  Northern  King- 
dom, its  weaker  sister,  Judah,  should  be  miraculously 
delivered.  Their  prediction  can  only  be  discredited 
by  imputing  to  them  what  they  do  not  say  and  what 
their  language  cannot  be  fairly  interpreted  to  mean. 
Thus  (p.  183),  ''To  Hosea,  as  to  Amos,  the  fall  of 
the  house  of  Jehu  and  the  fall  of  the  nation' appear  as 
one  thing;  both  Prophets,  indeed,  appear  to  have 
looked  for  the  overthrow  of  the  reigning  dynasty, 
not  by  intestine  conspiracy,  as  actually  happened,  but 
at  the  hand  of  the  destroying  invader." 

According  to  the  Doctor's  view  of  the  matter  (p. 
184),  the  comparison  of  Hosea  i.  4,  with  II.  Kings  x. 
30  "  places  in  the  strongest  light  the  limitations  that 
characterize  all  Old  Testament  revelation.  It  shows 
that  we  can  look  for  no  mechanical  uniformity  in  the 
teaching  of  successive  Prophets."  Hosea  speaks  of 
"  a  revolution  accomplished  with  the  active  participa- 
tion of  older  Prophets,"  as  "  the  bloodshed  of  Jezreel, 
the  treacherous  slaughter  of  the  house  of  Ahab." 
"  Elisha  saw  and  approved  one  side  of  Jehu's  revolu- 
tion. He  looked  on  it  only  as  the  death-blow  to 
Baal-worship ;  but  Hosea  sees  another  side  and  con- 


ON  THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL.  349 

demns  as  emphatically  as  Elisha  approved."  There 
is,  however,  no  real  discrepancy  between  these 
Prophets,  as  the  Doctor  himself  suggests  in  the  very 
act  of  urging  it  What  Elisha  approves  and  what 
Hosea  condemns  are  distinct  things.  By  divine  di- 
rection Jehu  executed  the  just  judgment  of  God 
upon  the  house  of  Ahab ;  so  far  he  did  right  and  was 
approved.  There  was,  however,  a  converse  to  this, 
which  is  immediately  added  by  the  sacred  historian 
(11.  Kings  X.  31),  "But  Jehu  took  no  heed  to  walk  in 
the  Law  of  the  Lord  God  of  Israel  with  all  his  heart ; 
for  he  departed  not  from  the  sins  of  Jeroboam,  which 
made  Israel  to  sin,"  Jehu  Ixad  been  explicitly  told 
(11.  Kings  ix.  9),  by  the  Prophet  who  gave  him  his 
commission,  that  the  house  of  Ahab  was  to  be  made 
"  like  the  house  of  Jeroboam  the  son  of  Nebat,  and 
like  the  house  of  Baasha  the  scin  of  Ahijah,"  who 
were  punished  for  the  criminality  of  the  golden 
calves.  This  very  criminality  was  subsequently  per- 
petuated by  Jehu.  From  an  executioner  of  God's 
righteous  sentence  he  thus  became  an  accomplice 
and  participant  in  the  crime;  and  in  judging  the 
house  of  Ahab  he  pronounced  a  like  doom  upon 
himself.  A  slaughter,  which  found  its  justification 
only  in  its  being  inflicted  in  obedience  to  the  declared 
will  of  God,  ceased  to  be  justifiable  as  performed  by 
one  who  set  that  will  at  defiance  (i.  Kings  xvi.  7; 
Deut.  viii.  20).  We  have  tacitly  assumed  that 
"blood"  in  this  passage  means  **  bloodshed"  as  the 
Doctor  paraphrases  it.  It  may,  however,  signify 
blood-guiltiness,  and  the  sense  of  the  passage  be  that 


350  DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 

a  guilt  equivalent  to  that  contracted  by  Ahab  in 
Jezreel  should  be  avenged  upon  the  house  of  Jehu^ 
which  by  following  in  a  like  course  of  sin  justified, 
and  as  it  were  assumed,  the  crimes  of  their  pred- 
ecessors. 

In  order  to  give  a  more  precise  idea  of  the  method 
and  aim  of  these  Lectures,  we  quote  a  summary  state* 
ment  (p.  229)  of  the  relation  between  Isaiah  and  the 
Prophets  of  Israel,  as  the  author  conceives  it.  The 
errors  of  the  passage  are  too  obvious  to  require  fur- 
ther correction. 

"  Isaiah  builds  on  the  foundations  laid  by  his  predecessors, 
Amos  and  Hosea.  But  his  treatment  of  the  problem  is  more 
comprehensive  and  all-sided.  The  preaching  of  Amos  was 
directed  only  to  breaches  of  civil  righteousness,  and  supplied 
no  standard  for  the  reformation  of  national  worship ;  it  left 
even  the  golden  calves  untouched.  Hosea,  on  the  other 
hand,  has  a  clear  insight  into  the  right  moral  attitude  of  the 
religious  subject  to  God ;  but  that  subject  is  to  him  the  per- 
sonified nation,  sinning  and  repenting  as  one  man,  and  there- 
fore he  has  no  practical  suggestions  applicable  to  the  actual 
mixed  state  of  society ;  his  prophecy  leaves  an  unexplained 
hiatus  between  Israel's  present  sin  and  its  future  return  to 
Jehovah.  Isaiah,  on  the  contrary,  finds  in  Jehovah's  holiness 
a  principle  equally  applicable  to  the  amendment  of  the  state 
and  the  elevation  of  religious  praxis,  an  ideal  which  supplies 
an  immediate  impulse  to  reformation,  and  which,  though  it 
cannot  be  fully  attained  without  the  intervention  of  purging 
judgments,  may  at  least  become  the  practical  guide  of  those 
within  Israel  who  are  striving  after  better  things." 

The  allegation  (p.  268)  that  Isaiah's  prophecy  to 
Ahaz  (chs.  vii.,  viii.)  was  ''of  the  nature  of  a  shrewd 


ON  THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL.  35  i 

political  forecast  rather  than  of  exceptional  predic- 
tion, and,  as  the  future  actually  shaped  itself,  his  worst 
anticipations  were  not  realized,"  is  based  on  two  un- 
founded assumptions,   viz. :   that  viii.  4  describes  the 
ultimate  overthrow  of  Samaria,  and  that  the  pictured 
desolation  of  Judah  belonged  to  a  single  campaign. 
The  prediction  in  ch.  xx.  is  allowed  to  have  been 
accomplished;   but  he  says  (p.  282),  "this  result  had 
not  come  about  in  the  way  that  Isaiah  anticipated"; 
which  anticipation  we  learn   not  from  the   Prophet, 
but  from  his  critic,  who  tells  us  that  Isaiah  had  ex- 
pected the  Assyrian  king  to  press   forward   against 
Egypt  on  the  fall  of  Ashdod.     In  regard  to  Isaiah's 
predictions  of  the  blissful  future  under  the  forms  of 
the  old  dispensation,  we  are  told  (p.  337)  that  they 
have  not  only  "  received  no  literal  fulfilment,  but  it 
is  impossible  that  the  evolution  of  the  divine  purpose 
can  ever  again  be  narrowed  within  the  limits  of  the 
petty  world  of  which  Judah  was  the  centre  and  Egypt 
and  Assyria  the  extremes."     He  objects  (p.  339)  to 
a  figurative    interpretation   of  such   prophecies,  bbt 
nevertheless  admits  (p.  342):   ''It  is  plain  from  the 
very  freedom  with  which  Isaiah  recasts  the  details  of 
his  predictions  from  time  to  time,  —  adapting  them 
to  new  circumstances,  introducing  fresh  historical  or 
poetical  motives,  and  cancelling  obsolete  features  in 
his  older  imagery,  —  that  he  himself  drew  a  clear  dis- 
tinction between  mere  accidental  and  dramatic  details, 
which  he  knew  might  be  modified  or  wholly  super- 
seded by  the  march  of  history,  and  the  unchanging 
principles  of  faith,  which  he  received  as  a  direct  reve- 


352 


DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH 


lation  from  Jehovah  Himself  and  knew  to  be  eternal 
and  invariable  truth." 

Now,  if  the  meaning  of  all  this  is  simply  that  Isaiah 
did  not  understand,  nor  was  it  given  to  him  to  reveal, 
the  divine  plans  in  all  their  extent  and  fulness,  this 
is  readily  conceded.  And  it  is  a  very  proper  subject 
of  investigation,  What  were  the  limitations  of  the  reve- 
lation granted  to  him,  and  what  is  the  exact  concep- 
tion expressed  in  his  words?  But  if  "  the  lion  which 
eats  straw  like  the  ox,  the  seas  and  rivers  dried  up 
to  facilitate  the  return  of  the  exiles  to  Judah,"  are 
"plainly  figurative"  (p.  303),  and  if  the  Prophet 
clearly  distinguishes  substance  and  form  in  employ- 
ing the  symbolic  institutions  of  the  Old  Testament  to 
body  forth  the  future,  no  correct  exegesis  can  fasten 
upon  the  prophecy  the  inaccuracy  of  declaring,  nor 
upon  the  Prophet  the  narrowness  of  supposing,  that 
his  picture  was  to  be  realized  in  the  particular  forms 
in  which  he  has  drawn  it.  These  were  more  or  less 
consciously  used  and  accepted  as  figures  of  a  reality 
ifciore  glorious,  but  as  yet  only  partially  disclosed  and 
dimly  understood  ;  just  as  the  vision  of  the  New  Jeru- 
salem is  to  us  the  picture  of  a  future  whose  magnifi- 
cence impresses  us,  but  in  what  precise  form  it  shall 
be  realized  we  cannot  tell. 

The  ''  Branch  of  the  Lord"  (Isa.  iv.  2)  is  referred 
(p.  248)  to  "the  simple  blessings  of  agricultural  life." 
Immanuel  (vii.  14  ff.,  p.  271)  was  simply  an  ordinary 
child,  born  at  the  time,  and  gave  no  such  pledge  to 
Ahaz  of  the  stability  of  his  royal  house  as  an  allusion 
to  the  promised  and  expected  Son  of  David  might 


ON  THE  PROPHETS ^  OF  ISRAEL.  353 

have  done.  "  It  is  by  no  means  clear"  (p.  306) 
whether  the  child  with  the  remarkable  names  (ix.  6) 
is  "one  person  or  a  race  of  sovereigns."  At  any  rate 
no  divine  person  is  intended,  for  "  there  is  no  reason 
to  think  that  they  denote  anything  metaphysical." 
And  Isa.  ii.  2-4  ''  is  far  from  implying  a  world-wide 
sovereignty  of  Israel "  (p.  309).  Micah,  it  seems 
(p.  290),  did  not  predict  the  captivity;  "thou  shalt 
come  even  to  Babylon"  (iv.  10)  is  a  gloss.  So,  while 
Isaiah  is  represented  (pp.  259,  260)  as  declaring  "  the 
inviolability  of  Jerusalem,"  and  Jeremiah  the  "  cap- 
tivity of  Jerusalem,"  Micah  is  made  to  affirm,  in  con- 
tradistinction from  both,  and  contrary  to  what  actually 
occurred,  that  the  city  shall  be  taken,  and  its  popula- 
tion driven  forth  into  the  open  field ;  "  there,  and  not 
within  her  proud  ramparts,  Jehovah  will  grant  her 
deliverance  from  her  enemies."  "  Jehovah's  right- 
eousness," as  declared  by  the  Prophets,  is  limited 
(p.  245)  to  "kingly  righteousness,"  which  "aims 
at,  not  the  transformation  of  the  hearts  of  men,  but 
the  removal  of  injustice  in  the  state." 

And  thus  by  emptying  words  of  their  meaning, 
by  attributing  to  the  Prophets  ideas  which  they  never 
entertained,  by  representing  them  as  in  collision 
where  there  is  nevertheless  entire  harmony,  and  by 
the  application  of  the  potent  wand  of  criticism  in  a 
few  obstinate  cases  where  less  summary  measures 
would  not  avail,  the  revelation  of  God  through  the 
Prophets  is  made  out  to  be  a  very  different  thing 
from  that  which  it  actually  is. 


INDEX   OF   SCRIPTURE   TEXTS 

QUOTED   OR   REFERRED   TO. 


GEXI 

iii.  15  ...     . 
V.24   .     .     .     . 
vii.  11      .     .     . 
xii.  6,  7   .     .     . 
xiii.  18    .     .     . 
xiv.  22    .     .     , 
xvii.  1     .     .     .     . 
xviii.  1,  2     .     . 
xviii.  10  .     .     . 
xviii.  26  ...     . 
xix. 11    .     .     . 
xix.  24    .     .     .     . 
XX.  13     .     .     . 
xxi.  31,  33  .     .     . 
xxi.  33     .     .     . 
xxiv.  3    .     .     .     . 
xxiv.  32  ...     . 
xxvi.  2.3-25  .     .     . 
XX vii.  7   .     .     .     . 
xxviii.  10  ff.     . 
xxviii.  12,  13    .     . 
xxxi.  19,  30      .     . 
xxxi.  19,  .32      .     . 
xxxi.  49,  54      .     . 
xxxii.  1,  2    .     .     . 
xxxii.  2    ,     .     . 
xxxii.  24.  30     . 
xxxiii.  18,  20    .     . 
XXXV.  2  .     .     .     . 

ISI 

s. 
2 

"!,' 

Page 

.  .  236 
.     303 

.  .  305 
.  161 
.  164 
.  270 
.  270 
.  271 
.     303 

311  note 
.  303 
.     270 

311  note 
.  162 
.  270 
.     270 

282  note 
.  162 
.  96 
.  165 
.  270 
.     271 

276  mte 
.  159 
.  303 
.  159 
.  271 
.      162 

276  note 
.  162 
.  166 
.     164 

106  note 
83,  237 
.     270 

.       OS 

.     ns 

58  note 
.     279    1 

EXO 

iii.  2     .     . 
iii.  5     .     . 
iii.  14  .     . 
iii.  18  .     . 
iv.  6    .     . 
iv.  10  ff   . 
iv.  24-26  . 
iv.  27  .     . 
V.  7  ff  .     . 
vi.  12,  30      . 
xii.  3  ff    . 
xii.  9  .     .     . 
xii.  25       . 
xiv.  21     . 
XV.  25      . 
xvi.  12     . 
xvii.  14    . 
xvii.  15    .     . 
xviii.  13-16  . 
xviii.  19  .     . 
xviii.  21,  22 
xix.,  XX. 
xix.  3-8 
xix.  3-19      . 
xix.  20-25    . 

XX.        .       .      . 

xx.-xxiii.    . 
XX.  1-20 .     . 
XX.  2  .     .     . 
XX.  4  .     .     . 

DU 

2.^ 

2,' 

'on 

28.: 

f'uiued).      Page 

.     ...     279 

.     .     .     .      94 

.     .     .     .      43 

.     ...     119 

.     .     .  303  note 

.     .     .    61  note 

.     .61  note 

.     .     .     .     279 

.     .     .     .       68 

...       96 

.     .118  note 

.     .119  note 

.   .    .   lis 

.     .     .     303 
...     303 
.     .     .     303 
.     .     49,  50 
...      95 
.     .    58  note 
.     .     .     313 
...       70 
279 
.     .  283  note 
.     .  283  note 
.     .  284  note 
n  Ite,  287,  2)6 
.     .     .     324 
.     .  283  note 
.     .  299  note 
.     .     .     294 

XXXV.  4    .     .     .     . 

►us 

XXXV.  9  ff    .     .     . 
xxxvii.  14    .     .     . 
xxxix.  1       .     .     . 
xlix.  10   .     .     .     . 
xlix.  25    .     .    .     . 

EXOE 
i.  11 

i.  U 

ii.  15 

iii.  1    

XX.  5  .     .     . 
XX.  6  .     .     . 
XX.  10      .     . 

XX.    11       .      . 

XX.  21,  24-2L 
XX.  22  ff  .     . 
XX.  2.5      .     . 
XX.  24      .     7 
XX.  21,  2.J     . 
xxi.-xxiii.    . 

4  7 

utt 

,9. 
5 

.     .     .     113 

.     .  299  note 

.     .  299  7iote 

.     .  2.J9  note 

.     .  234  nvte 

.     .    51,  310 

.     .    52,  113 

),  131,302,310 

...       74 

}.  51,  284  note 

(bi^),  322,  340 

,56 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE   TEXTS. 


EXODUS  {continued).      Page 

xxi.  6 70 

xxt.  12-14 76  note 

xxi.  13 311  note, 

xxi.  14 311  note 

xxii.  5, 6 68 

xxii.  8,  9 70 

xxii.  20        106  note 

xxii.  21-24 70 

xxii.  28 70,  304,  331 

xxii.  29 68 

xxii.  30 74,  75, 118 

xxiii.  2,  3,  9 70 

xxiii.  10,  11 68 

xxiii.  12 ,    .      68 

xxiii.  12  ff 283 

xxiii.  12-33 52 

xxiii.  14  ff 88  note 

xxiii.  14-18 118 

xxiii.  15,  16 68 

xxtii.  16       133 

xxiii.  17, 19 76 

xxiii.  18 287  note 

xxiii.  19       68 

xxiii.  20  ff 101 

xxiii.  24 106  note,  121 

xxiv.  3 51,  320  note 

xxiv.  3-8 284  note. 

xxiv.  4    .     .     .  49,  51,  74,121,310 

xsav.  8 51 

xxiv.  12-14 283  note 

XXV.  ff 306 

XXV.  lOff 88 

XXV.  10-22 66 

XXV.  21        88 

XXV.  21,  22 281 

XXV.  22 88 

XXV.  30 140 

xxvii.-xxxi 81  note 

xxvii.  Iff 74 

xxvii.  2        307 

xxvii.  20 90 

xxviii.  6 92  note 

xxviii.  30 67 

xxviii.  31  ff 92  note 

xxix.  4         90  note 

xxix.  30       81  note 

xxix.  36,  37 131 

xxix.  38-41 303 

XXX.  8 90 

XXX.  10 134 

XXX.  16 331 

xxxi.  2  ff 68 

xxxi.  10 81  note 

xxxi.  18 283  note 


EXODUS  (continued).      Page 
xsxii.      ...     283  note,  291,  292 

xxxii.  4 264  note 

xxxii.  19 282 

xxxii.  27,  35 100 

xxxii.  30  ff 100 

xxxiii.  1      ....  284  note  (bis) 

xxxiii.  1-6 57  7iote 

xxxiii.  1-11 283  note 

xxxiii.  3      .     58  note,  151,  284  note 

xxxiii.  4  ff 100 

xxxiii.  7       ...  58  note,  100,  102 

xxxiii.  7,  9, 11 58  note 

xxxiii,  7-11 57  note 

xxxiii.  9  ff 313 

xxxjii.  11 58  note 

xxxiv.      .    282  (bis),  284  and  note, 
285  note,  287,  322 

xxxiv.  1 52,  282 

xxxiv.  4 282,  284  note 

xxxiv.  5 284  note  (bis) 

xxxiv.  6 284  note 

xxxiv.  6,  7 282 

xxxiv.  6-9 284  note 

xxxiv.  9       ....   282,  284  note 
xxxiv.  10    ...     .    283,  284  note 

xxxiv.  10-13 285  7iote 

xxxiv.  10-26 52 

xxxiv.  11-26 283 

xxxiv.  12 118 

xxxiv.  12,  13 285  note 

xxxiv.  13 121 

xxxiv.  14-26 285  note 

xxxiv.  15,  16    .     .     .  106  note,  113 

xxxiv.  17 323  note 

xxxiv.  18-20 75 

xxxiv.  19,  25 118 

xxxiv.  21 68 

xxxiv.  22    .     .     87  note  (bis),  133, 
287  note 

xxxiv.  25 287  note 

xxxiv.  27 49,  282 

xxxiv.  27,  28 52 

xxxiv.  28     .     88,  281,  282  and  note, 
285  note  (bis),  304 

xxxiv.  29-35 285  7iote 

XXXV.  25,  26 68 

XXXV.  30  ff 68 

xxxvi.  ff 306 

xl 58  note 

xl.  20 281 

LEVITICUS. 

i 58  7iote 

i.-vii 81  note 


INDEX   OF  SCRIPTURE    TEXTS. 


357 


LEVITICUS 

{continued).      Page 

i.  5,  8, 11      . 

80 

i.  6-8  .     .     . 

303 

ii  2     ... 

80 

ii.  10,  11       . 

309 

ii.  U  .     .     . 

.     .     .     .304  note 

iii.  Iff     .     . 

....   93  note 

iii.  2    .     .     . 

80 

iv.  12,  21      . 

60 

V.  15-19 

.     .     .     .309  note 

vi.,  vii.    .     . 

.     .     .     .287no^e 

vi.  11        .    . 

60 

vi.  16-18  .     . 

309 

vii.  10      .    . 

309 

vii.  28  ff  .     . 

....   93  note 

vii.  30  ff  .     . 

93 

vii.  37.  38     . 

54 

viii.-x.     .     . 

....   81  note 

viii.  2ff   .     . 

60 

ix.  16  .     .     . 

303 

ix.  24  .     .     . 

303 

X  12    .     .     . 

309 

X.  15    .     .     . 

93 

X.  19,  20  .    .     . 

99 

XIU.,  XIV.        .      . 

77 

xiii.  2       .    . 

80 

xiii.  46    .    .     . 

.     .     60,  305,  309 

xiv.  3 .     .     .     . 

60 

xiv.  7,  8.     .     . 

303 

xiv.  8       .     .     . 

.     .     .       60  (bis) 

xiv.  34     .     . 

.     .     .        59,118 

xiv.  34  ff      .     . 

60 

xvi.     .     .     . 

.     .     81  note,  134 

xvi.  8       .     . 

339 

xvi.  21,22    . 

.     .     60,  135  note 

xvi.  26,  28   .     . 

60 

xvi.  32     .     .     . 

....   81  note 

xvii.  3      .     .     . 

60 

xvii.  3  ff       . 

77 

xvii.  3-7 

157 

xvii.  4,  5 

....   78  note 

xvii.  7      .     . 

113 

xviii.  3     .     . 

59 

xviii.  17  .     . 

....   89  note 

xix.  2      .    . 

100 

xix.  5      .     . 

96 

xix.  18    .     . 

100 

xix.  23    .     . 

59 

xix.  29     .     . 

.     ...    89  note 

xix.  36    .     . 

.     .     .     64,  117  note 

XX.  3  .     .     . 

117  note 

XX.  5,  6    .     . 

113 

XX.  11       .     . 

in  note 

xxi.  1       .     . 

80 

xxii.  27   .    . 

75 

LEVITICUS  {continued).      Page 

xxiii.3 304 

xxiii.  10 118 

xxiii.  14 304  note 

xxiii.  26-32 134 

xxiii.  34        308 

xxiii.  42        337  note 

xxiii.  44       54 

xxiv.  8,  9 140 

xxiv.  10,  14,  23 60 

XXV.  2 59,  118 

XXV,  8-10 134 

134 


XXV.  9 

XXV.  23 304 

XXV.  33,  34 83  note 

XXV.  39,  40        304 

xxvi 101, 183 

xxvi.  1 121 

xxvi.  5 117  note 

xxvi.  13        64 

xxvi.  14  ff 324 

xxvi.  22 304 

xxvi.  29       305 

xxvi.  30 324 

xxvi.  40  ff 101 

xxvi.  46 54 

xxvii.  29      ....     89  note,  304 
xxvii.  34 54 


NUMBERS. 


iii.  3    .     . 
iv.        .     . 
iv.  5,  20 
iv.  15 
iv.  15,  20 
iv.  15-21 
V.  2      .     . 
V.  2-4       . 
V.  7,  8      . 
V.  10    .     . 


V.  23 


.      80 
.     129 

141  note 
92  note 
.  92 
59  note 
.  305 
.  60 
309  note 
309  note 
.    339 


vi.  1-5 89  note 

vi.  2,  3 117  note 

viii.  22 93 

X.  2ff 60 

X.  8 80 

X.  21 59  note 

X.  33    .     .     .      59  note,  88,  283  note 

X.  35 89 

xi.  1 303 

xi.  5 68 

xi.  16 70 

xi.  24,  20,  30 58  note 

xi.  26-29 98 

xi.  27       58  note, 


35" 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE    TEXTS. 


NUMBERS  {continued).     Page 

xii 77 

xii.  3        61  note 

xii.  4,  5 58  note 

xii.  10 303 

xii.  13 303 

xii.  14,  15 60 

xiii.  32,  33 117  note 

xiv.  4       64 

xiv.  11  ff 100 

xiv.  33 113 

xiv.  44 88 

XV.  41 64 

xvi 77 

xvi.  35 303 

xvii.  2 339 

xviii.  2 130 

xviii.  4 130 

xviii.  7 134 

xviii.  12,  13 304 

xviii.  17 84  note 

xviii.  18 84  note 

xviii.  20 77 

xix.  3,  4 60 

xix.  3,  7,  9 60 

xix.  14,  16 60 

xix.  14,  22 117  note 

XX.  6         68 

XX  8         303 

XX.  12 61  note 

XXV.  3,  g 117  note 

XXV.  11-13        155 

xxvii.  17 304 

xxvii.  21 67 

xxvii.  58,  59 92  note 

xxviii.  11  304 

xxviii.  19,  24    .     .     .    118  note,  124 

xxix.  7-11 134 

xxix.  12 308 

xxix.  13  ff 125 

xxxi.  27 56  note 

xxxii.  2        70 

xxxiii.  2 49 

xxxiv.  8 117  note 

XXXV.  10  ff 311  note 

XXXV.  30 304 

xxxvi.  1        70 

xxxvi.  8, 9 304 


DEUTERONOMY. 
i.  1 161 

i.  43 65  note 

iv.  23-26 151 

iv.  29 lO'l 


DEUTERONOMY  {continued).     Page 

iv.  30 323 

v 282,  287 

vii.  15 64 

viii.  11 138 

viii.  20 349 

ix.  21 293 

ix.  23 65  note 

X.  1-5 88 

X.  1-8 66 

X.  4,  5 281 

X.  6 79 

X.  8 82,  89 

X.  8,  9 77 

xi.  6 77 

xi.  10 68 

xi.  16,  17 303 

xi.  24 311  note 

xii.-xxvi 50,  53 

xii.  1 138 

xii.  1,  8,  9 59 

xii.  2 311  nota 

xii.  2-5 157 

xii.  5    .     .     .  74,  243,  267,  276  note 

xii.  5  ff 155 

xii.  5,  10  ft' 60 

xii.  6,  11 118 

xii.  8,  9 118 

xii.  9 59 

xii.  15 77,  85  note 

xii  27 118 

xiii.  5       89  note 

xiii.  5,  10 64 

xiii.  9 304 

xiii.  10 304 

xiii.  12  ft' 9,^  note 

xiv.  23  ff 60 

xiv.  24 84  note 

xiv.  28 117  note 

xiv.  29 79 

XV.  4,  7 59 

XV.  5,  6 70 

XV.  19 118 

XV.  19,  20 84  note 

XV.  20 75 

xvi.  2 118  and  note 

xvi.  2,  6  ff 60 

xvi.  7  .     .     .60,  118  note,  119  note 

xvi.  13  ff 308 

xvi.  14 82  note 

xvi.  18 71 

xvi.  19 65  note 

xvi.  20 70 

xvi.  21.  22 121 

xvi.  22 .121 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE   TEXTS. 


359 


l>EUTEROX( 

xvii.  5      . 
xvii.  6,  7 
xvii.  8-12 
xvii.  9,  18 
xvii.  12    . 
xvii.  14    . 
xvii.  14  ff 
xvii.  15    . 
xvii.  15,  16 
xvii.  18    . 
xviii.  1     . 
xviii.  1  ff 
xviii.  1,  2 
x\'iii.  3     . 
xviii.  3-5 
xviii.  4,  5 
xviii.  6     . 
xviii.  6-8 

8 
>2. 

i'( 

con 

!8! 

59 

tinutd).     Page 
.     .     304  (bis) 
.     .     .     .     304 
.     .     .     64,  71 
.      .      .        7ft 

DEUTERONOM 

xxvii.  o   .     . 
xxvii.  5,  6    . 
xxvii.  9    .     . 
xxvii.  9,  12,  14 
xxvii.  17  .     . 
xxviii.      .     . 
xxviii.  15  ff . 
xxviii.  27,  60 
xxviii.  .30,  39 
xxviii.  53 
xxviii.  60      . 
xxviii.  68      . 
xxix.  5     .     . 
xxix.  23  .     . 
XXX.  2      .     . 
XXX.  3      .     . 
xxxi.  9    .     . 
xxxi.  9,  22,  24 
xxxi.  9,  25,  -^fi 

v( 

>SB 

contin 

ued).     Page 
.     .     .       53 
.     .     .     310 
79,  81  note 
.     .     .      79 

)  n 
)9, 

78 
in 

)te,  116  note 

65  note,  145 

.     .     .      64 

.     .   65  note 

.     .     .      64 

.     .     .     108 

,  79,  82  note 

.     .   82  note 

77 

85  note,  133 

78,  82  tiofe 

.     .     305 

.     .       79 

.   78,  308 

.   82  note 

117  note 

.     .     101 

.    57  note 

.     .     181 

.     .     304 

.     .       59 

311  note 

.     .      70 

te,  116  note 

.     .     304 

.     .       64 

.     .      64 

.     .      63 

.     .       63 

.   89  note 

.     .       59 

.     .     304 

.    89  note 

117  note 

.     .      63 

.     .      64 

.    89  nute 

.     .     339 

.   79,  309 

.     .       77 

.     .       64 

.     .       70 

.     .     108 

117  7iote 

.   89  note 

117  note 

.     .       63 

.   82  tiofe 

117  note 

117  7wte 

.      116  note 
.      101,  183 
.     .     .     324 
.     .     .     323 
.      117  note 
.     .     .     305 
.     .     .      64 
.       116  note 
.     .     .     303 
.     .     .     324 
.     .     .     323 
1 17  note 
.  52,  81  note 
.     .     .       49 
.     .       66 

xviii.  15  . 
xviii.  15  ft' 
xviii.  18  . 
xviii.  21,  22 
xviii.  22  . 
xix.  1 
xix.  1  ff  . 
xix.  8,  9  . 
xix.  14     . 
xix.  15     . 
xix.  17     .     . 

XX.  1 

XX.  10-15 
XX.  16-18     . 
XX.  17      . 
xxi.  1,  23 
xxi.  17     . 
xxii.  21    .     . 
xxii.  30    . 
xxiii.  3,  4,  7, 
xxiii.  7     . 
xxiii.  21-23 
xxiv.  1     . 
xxiv.  8     .     . 
xxiv.  8,  9 
xxiv.  9,  18,  i 
xxiv.  13,  15 
xxiv.  16  .     . 
XXV.  4      . 
XXV.  6      . 
XXV.  13  ft 
XXV.  17-19    . 
xxvi.  11,  12 
xxvi.  12  .     . 
xxvi.  14  .     . 

xxxi.  9,  26 
xxxi.  24  . 
xxxi.  24-26 
xxxii.  37,  3i 
xxxii.  39 
xxxiii. 
xxxiii.  1  . 
xxxiii.  2-5 
xxxiii.  8,  10 
xxxiii.  8-11 
xxxiii.  18,  1 

i.  7,8  .     . 
iii.  3     .     . 
iv.  19  .     . 
iv.  23  .     . 
V.  2  ff  .     . 
V.  5  ff  .     . 
V.  15    .     . 
vi.  6     .     . 
viii.  .30.  31 
viii.  31      . 
viii.  31-34 
viii.  33     . 
ix.  27  .     . 
xiii.  26     .     . 
xviii.  1     . 
xviii.  9     . 
xix.  .50     . 
xix.  51      . 
XX.  7  .     . 
XX.  8  .     . 
xxi.     .     . 

9 
J( 

UA. 

80  ^ 

80  1 

.     .     107 

.     .     .       54 

.     .     .       53 

.   89  note 

.     .     305 

.      279,  316 

.     .     279 

.     .     280 

.    82,316 

.     .      78 

.     .     163 

107,  344 
lote.  92  note 
.     .     166 
.     .     303 
.     .     166 
.     .     101 
.     .       94 
.    92  note 
.     .     310 
.     .     107 
.     .     344 
tote,  92  note 
128  note 
.     .     160 
.     .       87 
.     .     339 
111  note 
.     .       87 
.     .     162 
.      .      160 
.    82  unit 

36o 


INDEX   OF  SCRIPTURE    TEXTS. 


XXI. 

xxi. 

xxi. 

xxi. 

xxi. 

xxii. 

xxii. 

xxii. 

xxiii, 

xxiv 

xxi\^ 

xxiv 

xxiv 

xxiv 

xxiv 

xxiv 


JOSHUA  {continued).       Page 

4  ff 80  note 

13 164 

16 83  note,  92 

32 160 

38 ]60 

5 344 

8 57  note 

26  £f 95 

.6 344 

316,  340 

...  162 
276  note 
.  .  .  162 
.  .  .  151 
...  340 
107,  316,  344 


1     .     .     . 

14  .     .     . 
.  14,  23,  26 
.19 
.  25,  26       . 

26  .     .     . 


i.  17 
ii.  1  ft' 
ii.  1-5 
ii.  7 


ii.  11-19 
iii.  4     . 
iii.  9    .     , 
iii.  11,30 
iii.  19 
iv.  3    . 


iv.  4 
iv.  10 
v.    . 


V.  4,  5      .... 

V.  14 

vi.  8 

vi.  20.  21,  24,  25  ff 
vi.  20-22  .  .  , 
vi.  24        .     .     .     . 


:i.  25 


vi.  25  ft'  . 
viii.  34  . 
viii.  27  . 
viii.  28  . 
ix.  4,  27,  46 
ix.  6    .     . 


ix.  27  .  . 
X.  14  .  . 
X.  17  .  . 
xi.  11  .  . 
xi.  13  ft-  . 
xi.  35,  36 
xiii.  4,  5,  14 
xiii.  16  ft' 
xvi.  17 


89 


91 
note 
101 

95 
102 

97 
344 

97 

97 
166 

97 
101 
160 
296 
279 
339 


101 

165 

95 


138, 


89 


95 

96 

95 

339 

165 

97 

161 

162 

note 

note 

100 

160 

note 

note 

note 

95 

note 


JUDGES  {continued). 
xvii.-xxi 


Page 

8!) 


xvii.  2 
xvii.  3      . 
xvii.  5 
xvii.  5,  12 
xvii.  7 
xvii.  7-0  . 
xviii.  14  ft 
xviii.  30  . 
xviii.  30,  31 
xviii.  31  . 
xix.  1 
xix.  18     . 
xix.  23,  24 

XX.  1 

XX.  6 
XX.  6,  10  . 
XX.  12      . 
XX.  13      . 


.  .  106  note 
.  .  264  note 
....  138 
.  .  106  note 
....  92 
....  91 
.  .  117  note 
.  264  note  (bis) 
.  .  264  note 
....  87 
....  91 
....  87 
...  89  note 
89  note,  96,  163 
.  .  .  89  note 
...  89  note 
....  163 
...    89  note 


XX.  18,  26,  27    ...     .      164,  166 

XX.  18,  26,  31 88 

XX.  27 88  (bis),  281 

XX.  31 88 

xxi.  2 88 

xxi.  4 89,  96,  164 

xxi.  10,  13 89  note 

xxi.  11 89  note 

xxi.  12 89 

xxi.  17 89  note 

xxi.  19 88  and  note 

xxi.  21 87  note 

I.    SAMUEL. 

i.  1 92 

i.  3 91  (bis) 

i.  3,  9 80 

i.  7 90 

i.  9 90  note 

i.  11 89  note 

i.  20,  21 :   87  note 

i.  22 139 

i.  24 90 


ii.  11 


93 


ii.  11,  18  .     , 
ii.  12  ft     . 
ii.  13    .     .     , 
ii.  14,  22,  29 


79  note 
.  93 
.  96 
.       91 


ii.  14,  29 139 

ii.  18 92  note,  106  note 

ii.  22 90  note 

ii.  27,  28 91 

ii.  29 91,  139 

ii.  29  ft 139 

ii.  30  ft 155 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE   TEXTS. 


361 


I.  SAMUEL  (cojitinueil).      Page 

ii.  3G 318 

iii.  1 79  note 

iii.  3 90 

iii.  11  ff 139 

iii.  15        90  7iote 

iii.  20,  21 139 

iv.  1 279 

iv.  3 89 

iv.  4 90,  139,  148 

iv.  11 102 

vi.  13 141 

vi.  14,  18 S3  note 

vi.  15 92,  128 

vi.  19 92,  141  note 

vii.  1 103, 106  note 

vii.  2 103,  142 

vii,  3 104 

vii.  5,  9 163 

vii.  6 164 

vii.  9,  17 105  note 

vii.  12       279 

vii.  13-17 Hi  note 

vii.  16 166,  Sll  note 

vii.  17 140,  164 

viii 143wo^e,  144 

viii.  ff USnote 

viii.  3 65  note 

viii.  5 65»o^e 

viii.  7 145 

viii.  7,  8 65  7iote 

viii.  19.  20 146 

ix.  12        164 

ix.  12,  13 105  note 

ix.  13       104 

X.  3 105,  166 

X.  5 105 

X.  8 10b  note,  im 

X.  17 163 

X.  18,  19 65  note 

X.  24 65  note 

X.  25 339 

xi.  14,  15      ....     105  7iote,  166 

xii.  14 65  note 

xiii.  8,  13 152 

xiii.  8-14 105 

xiii.  9  ff 166 

xiv.  3       140 

xiv.  18 103  note 

xiv.  35 105  note 

xiv.  47-52    .     .     •     .     .       143  note 

XV.  15  ff 166 

XV.  15,  21 105  note 

XV.  22 100 

XV.  22,  23 151 


I.  SAMUEL  (continued).      Page 


XV.  23 

276  note 

XV.  26 

.     .     147 

XV.  35 

.     .     147 

xvi.  2 

.     .     152 

xvi.  2ff         

.     .    164 

xvi.  2-5         

105  note 

xix.  16 

276  note 

XX.  6        

.105,  164 

xxi.  1,  6        

.     .     103 

xxi.  6 

.     .     140 

xxii.  11 

.     .     140 

xxii.  19 

.     .    140 

xxii.  20 

.     .       91 

xxiii.  18 

.     .     160 

XXV.  1 

143  note 

xxvi.  19        

.     .      96 

XXX.  24,  25 

.    bQnote 

XXX.  31 

311  note 

II.  SAMUEL. 

ii,  1 

.     .     164 

ii.  4 

.     .     164 

ii.  8 

.     .     160 

iii.  3     

106  7iote 

v.  3 

.     .    164 

v.  12 

.     .     153 

vi.  1 

.     .     148 

vi.  2 

.     .     148 

vi  3 

92  note 

vi.  6,  7,  13 

.    92  note 

vi,  7 

.     .      92 

vi.  13 

106  note 

vi.  14 

106  note 

vi.  17 

.    .     154 

vi.  18 

106  note 

vi.  21 

.     .    148 

vii 

.     .     154 

vii.  6 

.    90  note 

viii.  11 

.     .     154 

viii.  1.5-18 

144  note 

viii.  16,  17 

.     .     339 

viii.  17 

.     .    154 

viii.  18 

106  note 

IX 

lUnote 

X 

144  note 

xi.  13 

282  note 

xi.  14,  15 

.     .     339 

xiv.  24 

.     .     147 

XV.  7-9 

.     .     164 

XV.  24 

.     .     128 

XV.  24,  29 

.    {i'2?i(>i<- 

XV.  24-29,  35     .... 

.     .     154 

xvii.  24 

.     .     160 

xix.  24ff 

144  note 

;62 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE   TEXTS, 


II.  SAMUEL  (continued).       Page 

XX.  23 127  note 

XX.  23-26 144  note 

XX.  24,  25 339 

XX.  25 154 

xxii 110 

xxiv.  16-18 94 

I.  KINGS. 

i.  50,  51 307 

ii.  3 108,  138,  344 

ii.  26,  27 155 

ii.  27 91 

ii.  28 307 

ii.  35 IW  note 

iii.  1 Ill  note 

iii.  2     ....      105,  106no^e,  155 

iii.  4 1G4 

iii.  6 160 

iv.  3 339 

vi.,  vii.    .     , 306 

vi.  5 90  note 

vi.  12 138 

vi.  38 308 

vii.  51 154 

viii.  2       308 

viii.  3       92  7iote 

viii.  4       ....  80  note,  128,  308 

viii.  6-9,  21 298 

viii.  9,  21 281 

viii.  10, 11 306 

viii.  53,  56 108 

viii.  62 131 

viii.  63 106  note 

viii.  64 309 

ix.  4,  6.' 138 

ix.  15       Ill  note 

ix.  25 106  note,  133 

xi.  7,  8 155 

xi.  29  ft' 265 

xi.  33 267 

xi.  33,  38 138 

xi.  40 267 

xii.  1,  25 162 

xii.  2 264  note 

xii.  25 Ill  note 

xii.26ff 108 

xii.  28,  29 264  note 

xii.  29 166 

xii.  31 316 

xii.  32,  33 308 

xiii.  2 265 

xiii.  32 265 

xiii.  32,  33 155 


I. 

KINGS  (continued).      Page 

xiii.  33     . 

.      108,  316 

xiv.  8,  9  . 

.     .     108 

xiv.  9 

.      265,  271 

xiv.  10,  11 

.     .    271 

xiv.  22-24 

.     .     155 

XV.  14      . 

.     .     155 

XV.  17      . 

111  note 

xvi.  1,  2  . 

.     .     265 

xvi.  2-4   . 

.     .     271 

xvi.  7 

.     .     349 

xvi.  25,  26 

.     .     272 

xvi.  31-33 

.     .     269 

xvii.  1      . 

.     .     303 

xvii.  6       . 

.     .     .     303 

xvii.  12,  14, 

24      .     . 

270  note 

xvii.  14     . 

.     .     303 

xviii   18  . 

.     .    269 

xviii.  17  . 

.     .    269 

xviii.  18  . 

.     .     272 

xviii.  21,  24       .     .     . 

.     .    271 

xviii.  23,  33       .     .     . 

.     .     303 

xviii.  24,  38       ... 

.     .     303 

xviii.  27 

.     .    271 

xviii.  29,  36      .     .     . 

133,  303 

xviii.  30 

.     .    165 

xviii.  31  . 

. 

.     .    271 

xviii.  36  . 

119  7iote,  ] 

52,  164,  270 

xviii.  40  . 

.     .     304 

xix.  3  ft  . 

270  note 

xix.  6       . 

.     .     303 

xix.  8       . 

273,  304 

xix.  10     . 

119  note 

xix.  14     . 

165,  269 

xix.  15     . 

.     .     272 

XX.  42      . 

.     .     304 

xxi.  3 

.     .     304 

xxi.  8,  9 

.     .     339 

xxi.  10     . 

.     .     304 

xxi.  21-24 

.     .     271 

xxi.  22     . 

.     .     294 

xxu.    .     . 

.     .     266 

xxii.  17    . 

.     .     304 

xxii.  28    . 

.     .     304 

xxii.  43    . 

.     .     155 

If.  KINGS. 

i.  10,  12 

.     .     303 

ii.  3  ft 

.     .     303 

ii.  8,  14 

.     .     303 

ii.  9      . 

.     .     304 

ii.  21    . 

.     .     303 

ii.  23,  24 

.     .     295 

ii.  24    . 

.     .     304 

INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE    TEXTS. 


36, 


11. 

KI> 

'03 

{continued).      Page 

II.  KINGS 

{continued).     Page 

iii.  .     .     . 

....       266  noU 

xviii.  18 339 

iii.  2,  3      . 

.     .     2!J4 

xviii.  22  . 

.     .     156 

iii.  10,  13 

295  note 

xix.  34      . 

.     .     120 

iii.  13,  14 

.     .     295 

XX.  16-18 

.     .     182 

iii.  17        .     . 

.     .     303 

xxi.  3 

.     .     155 

iii.  20  . 

.     .     303 

xxi.  4  ff   . 

128  note 

iv.  1 

.     .     304 

xxi.  7-9   . 

.     .     108 

iv.  16 

.     .     303 

xxi.  8 

.     .     344 

iv.  23 

.     .     304 

xxii.  4 

.     .     133 

iv.  42 

.     .     304 

xxii.  4,  8 

.     .     308 

V.  5-7 

.     .     339 

xxii.  8     . 

107,  344 

V.  7 

.     .     305 

xxiii.  3,  25 

.     .     138 

V.  10 

.     .     303 

xxiii.  4     . 

133,  308 

V.  27 

.     .     303 

xxiii.  9     . 

156,  .308 

vi.  17 

.     .     303 

xxiii.  13  . 

.     .     155 

vi.  18 

.     .     303 

xxiii.  24,  25 

.  107,  344 

vi.  23, 

24'     . 

.     .     143 

XXV.  18    . 

.     .     308 

vi.  28,  29       . 

.     .     305 

XXV.  25    . 

.     .     133 

vii.  2,  19 

.     .     305 

vii.  3    .     . 

* 

.     .     305 

I.    CHRONICLES 

viii.  12,  1; 

J 

.     .     272 

iv.  41  42.  43       ... 

63  note 

ix.9     . 

294,  349 

vi.  8     .     .     . 

130  note 

X.  1       . 

.     .     339 

vi.  28       . 

.     .      92 

X.  28,  29 

.     .     207 

vi.  53  .     . 

130  note 

X.  2J    . 

.     .     108 

ix.  2  ff      . 

.     .     129 

X.  30    . 

.     .     348 

xiii.  3       . 

.     .     103 

X.  31    . 

344,  349 

XV.  2 

.    79  note 

X.  32    . 

.     .272 

xvi  39      . 

.     .     155 

xi.  4    . 

127  note 

xviii.  17  . 

106  note 

xi.  12 

.     .     108 

xxii.  5 

.     .     154 

xii.  3   . 

.     .     155 

xxiii.  25,  26 

.     .    154 

xii.  7,  10 

.     .     133 

xxiv.  3     . 

.     "  91,  130  note,  155 

xii.  10 

308,  339 

xxvii.  17  . 

.     .     .     .       130  note 

xii.  IG 

.     .     309 

xiii.  3,  22 

.     .     272 

II. 

CHROXICLES. 

xiii.  6 .. 

.     .     293 

i.  3,  13      . 

164 

xiv.  4  . 

.     .     155 

V.  5      .     . 

. 

.     80  710^6 

xiv.  6  . 

108,  344 

v.  7-10     .     . 

.     .     .    298 

xiv.  22 

111  note 

vi.  11,  41 

.     .     .    298 

XV.  4  . 

.     .     155 

vii.  9 

.     .     .     132 

XV.  5    . 

.     .     309 

viii.  2       . 

111  note 

XV.  35 

.     .     155 

viii.  13     .     . 

.     .     133 

xvi.  13,  \- 

.     .     309 

xiv.  3-5   . 

.     .     .     156 

xvi.  15 

.     .     133 

xiv.  13     . 

.     .     160 

xvii.  9 

.     .     155 

xvii.  6      . 

.     .     156 

xvii.  13 

.     .     266 

xix.  5,  8 

.     .     .       71 

xvii.  37 

.     .     344 

xxiii.  4     . 

.     .     130 

xviii.  2 

231  note 

xxiii.  18  . 

.     .   80  note 

xviii.  4 

.     .     107 

xxiv.  6     . 

.    35  note 

xviii.  4,  2 

.     .     330 

xxvii.  6    . 

.     .     160 

xviii.  6 

.     .     108 

XXX.  17    . 

.     .     130 

xviii.  6,  1 

.     .     344 

XXX.  19    . 

.     .     100 

xviii.  12 

.     .     108 

XXX.  27    . 

.   80  note 

xviii.  1 

3 

.      231  note 

xxxi.  20 

.     .     .     160 

3^4 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE    TEXTS. 


II.  CHRONICLES  (continued).    Page 

xxxiii.  12,  23 160 

xxxiii.  17 156 

xxxiv.  2,  3 227 

XXXV.  3        299 

XXXV.  13      ....   119  note,  130 

XXXV.  21 208 

xxxvi.  20 39 

xxxvi.  22 239 

EZRA. 

i.  1 239 

i.  4 311  note 

ii.  36  ff 129 

ii.  58 128  note 

ii.  63 67 

iii.  7 196  note 

vii.  7,  24 129 

viii.  15  ff 129 

viii.  20 128  note 

ix.  5 135  7iote 

ix.  11 57  note 

NEHEMIAH. 
i.  4 160 

vii.  39  ff 83  note,  129 

vii.  65 67 

viii.-x 132 

viii.  1,14 127 

ix.  13 280 

x.  28,  29 128  note 

X.  29 127 

X.  32 131 

xi.  20 78 

xii.  1-9 129 

xii.45 127 

ESTHER. 

i.  3, 14,  18 228 

1.19 228 

JOB. 

xxxvii.  6       42 

PSALMS. 

i.-xli 109 

iii.  4 110 

V 109 

vi 109 

ix no 

X no 


PSALMS  (continued).      Page 

xi.  4 110 

xi.  6 110 

xiv 109 

XV 110 

XV.  1 110 

xviii 110 

xviii.  6 110 

xviii.  10 110 

xviii.  22 110 

xix 110 

xix.  7 108 

xix.  7-10 110 

XX 145 

xxi 145 

xl 110,  111  note,  112 

xl.  1,  5 112  note 

xl.  6      ....     110,  111  ancl  note 

xl.  7,  8 112 

1.  8-15       Ill  note 

Ii Ill  note 

Ii  10,  17 Ill  note 

Ixviii.  8,  17 279 

Ixviii.  16  ff 148 

Ixxviii.  5       108 

Ixxviii.  56-61 140 

Ixxviii.  60,  68 102 

Ixxviii.  61  ff      ....      264  note 

Ixxxvii.  4 221 

xcix.  6 153 

ciii.  7 115  note 

cx\'i.  9 .      96 

CANTICLES. 

vi.  13 160 

ISAIAH. 

i.  10 215,  319,  338 

i.  11  ff       .     .    99,  111  note,  118,  121 

i.  11-20 241 

i.  15 121 

i.  24ff 220 

ii.  2 123 

ii.  2,  3 120 

ii.  2-4 241,  353 

ii.  3 120 

ii.  6,  7 65  note 

iii.  10,  11 220 

iv.  2 352 

iv.  5 120 

V,  19 U5 

v.  26-30 1>i-i 

Vi.  Iff 1-0 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE   TEXTS. 


365 


ISAIAH  {continued) 
vi.  13  .  . 
vii.  3  ff  . 
vii.  5-8  . 
vii.  7,  8  . 
vii.  U  tf  . 
vii.  15,  16 
vii.  Iti  .  . 
viii.  1  .  . 
viii.  2  .  . 
viii.  4  .  . 
vii.,  viii. 
ix. 6  .  . 
X.  1  .  . 
X.  5-34  . 
X.  19  .  . 
X.  20-22  . 
X.  21  .  . 
X.  24-34  . 
X.  32  .  . 
xi.  9  .  . 
xi.  14  .  . 
xi.  15  .  . 
xii.  6  .  . 
xiv.  31  . 
xvii.  8 
xvii.  12-14 
xviii  7  . 
xix.  19  . 
xix.  21  . 
xix.  23  . 
xix.  23-25 
xix.  25     . 

XX.         .       . 

XX.  4  .     . 

xxiii    .     . 
xxiii.  6,  7,  12 
xxiii.  15-18 
xxiii.  18  . 
xxiv.  23  . 
XXV.  10    . 
xxvii.  9    . 
xxvii.  13 . 
xxviii.  16 
xxix.  1,  8 
xxix.  13   . 
XXX.  1  ff   . 
XXX.  8 
XXX.  9,  10 
XXX.  29     . 
XXX.  31  ft" 
xxxi.  1 
xxxi.  4,  9 
xxxi.  8,  9 
xxxiii.  20 . 


Page 

.  220 

.   61 

.  183 

232 

\     3.52 

.  232 

.  232 

50,  339 

117  note 

.     351 

.  350 

.  237 

.  338 

.  183 

.  339 

.  220. 

.  237 

.  213 

.  120 

.  157 

.  198 

.  214 

.  157 

.  186 

■  .  120 

.  213 

.  157 

.  120 

.  121 

.  214 

.  221 

.  245 

.  351 

.  213 

188,  ,194 

.  194 

.  195 

.  221 

.  157 

.  198 

.  120 

.  157 

.  1.57 

.  157 

.  121 

.   64 

50,  339 

.  319 

.  157 

.  213 

.   04 

.  157 

.  213 

.  120 

ISAIAH  (continued). 


xxxiv. 

xxxvi.,  xxxvu 
xxxvi.  1 
xxxvi.  7 
xxxviii.,  xxxix 
xxxviii.  1 
xxxviii.  5 
xxxviii.  6 
xxxix.  5-7 
xxxix.  6 
xl.-lxvi. 
xl.  3      . 
xli.  8     . 
xlii.  5    . 
xliii.  9-12 
xlviii.  21 
xlviii.  22 
liii  8,  9,  10, 
Iv.  3      . 
Ivi.  3     . 
Ivi.  3-8 
Iviii.  6  . 
Ixi.  1  ff 
Ixiii.  1-6 
Ixvi.  1-3 
Ixvi.  23 


JEREMIAH. 


ii.  18.  36 
iii.  2  . 
iii.  16  . 
vii.  12  . 
vii  12,  14 
vii.  12-14 
vii.  U  . 
vii.  21  ff 
vii.  22  . 
vii  31  . 
viii.  3  . 
xi.  3  ff  . 
xii.  16  . 
XV.  1  . 
xvii.  1-3 
xvii.  15 
xxiv.  . 
xxiv.  9 

XXV.  11 
XXV.  11.  ] 
XXV.  12 
XXV.  22 
XX vi.  6 
xxvi.  6,  9 
xxvii.  3 


W 


Page 
199  nof 
231  note 
231  note 
.  .  156 
231  note 
231  note 
231  note 

231  note 

232  note 
232 
237 
146 
243 

115  note 
.  181 
.  214 
.  220 
.  238 
.  238 
.  245 
.  221 
.  134 
.  134 
.   63 

127,  242 
.  242 


.  .   64 
.  .  157 
243,  299 
.  .  140 
.  .  102 
.  .  243 
,  .  221 
,  .  118 
91  note,  110 
.  157 
311  note 
.    221 
.  221 
.  153 
.  157 
.  185 
.  221 
311  note 
.     195 
209,  239 
.  183 
.  195 
102,  243 
.  140 
.  198 


366 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE   TEXTS. 


JEREMIAH  {continued).     Page 

xxvii.  7  . 
xxviii.  . 
xxviii.  9  . 
xxix.  10  . 
xxix.  14  . 
xxxi.  31  ff 
xxxi.  32,  33 


234 

181 

239 

.     .     .       Zll  note 

243 

299 

XXXV.  2;  4' 90  note 

xxxvi.  4  ff -       61 

xl.  12       -mnote 

xl.  14       . 

xli.  2,  15 

xliii.  2  ff 

xliii.  8-13 

xliv.  12-14 


198 
198 
126 
200 
200 


xliv   15  ff 1'26 

XV  29,  30 201,202 

xlv.  5 311  note 

-1--^ :  :  :  '20S 


xlvi.  13-28  . 
xlvi.  26  .  . 
xlvii.  2  .  . 
xlviii.  47 
xlix.  6  .  . 
xlix.  17,  18  . 
xlix.  23-27   . 


.  202 

.  186 

.  63 

.  63 

.  63 

.  197 
39,  183 

.  183 


li.  59-64 183 


EZEKIEL. 


244 

157 


221 
245 
243 


vili.  3ff   *.     '.     '.     .     .     '       l^^note 

xi 

xi.  15 

xi.  16 

xi.23 243 

xvi.16 15' 

xvi.  53,  55,  61 215 

^vi;  53-61 244 

xvu -** 

xvii.  22,  23 123 

XX.  7,  8 2,6Mofe 

XX.  27-29 157 

xxi.  20 19S 

xxui •     ^** 

xxiii.  3      ......      •2iQ  note 

XXV.  14     . ^^^ 

XXV.  IS-IT 

xxvi-xxviii 

xxvi.  10 

xxvi.  12 


EZEKIEL  (contimud).        Page 
xxviii.  24-26 1?I 


185 
188 
194 
194 


210 

.    200 

.    211 

.    203 

.    193 

199  note 

311  note 

199  note 

199  note 

.    124 

.    124 

.    122 

.    134 

.    123 

.    110 

xiiirieff '. 123 

xliii    2-4 ^^'^ 

xliii.  18  ff 131 

^  V.7       :  130 

xliv   11 130 

xliv.  28  ff 133 

xlv.  19,  20 

xlv.  21, 25     ....     ■ 

xlv.  23-25 

xlvi.  13  ff 

xlvi.  24 

xlvii 

xlvii.  1-12     .... 
xlviii.  11-13  .... 


xxix.  10,  11  . 
xxix.  11-16  . 
xxix.  16  .  • 
xxix.  17-21  . 
xxix.  18-20  . 
xxxiii.  21 
xxxiv.  12 

XXXV.  .      . 

xxxvi.  5  .  . 
xxxvii.  1  ff  . 
xxxix.  9  ft"  . 
xl.-xlviii. 
xl.  1  .  .  ■ 
xl.  2  .  . 
xl.  39 


132 

.  133 

.  124 

.  133 

.  130 

.  244 

.  123 

.  131 


DANIEL. 

ii         227 

•  ■   oA                     ...      Ill  note 

V  2ff".    *.     '. 227 

v.io    . 226 

V  28         228 

V30                       226 

l\  8   12   15                 ....  228 

''}:  ^'  1^-  ^' 227 

"'y.-  \ .  228 

^'l^?., .     .  238 

^'If!-?!^^ .225 

''Wl-lj, .     228 

j:;'-^  ••::::.  40, 239 

IX.  /    .     •     •     •     •  23«) 

iJinr-  :  :  :  :  :  -^--li 

^:  ^ 240 

^?o "...     225 

XI.  2 rt.2!s 

xi.  40-45 ^^"^ 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE    TEXTS. 


367 


DAXIEL  (continued). 

xii.  1,  2 

xii.  7 

xii.  11,  12 


Paye 
229 
225 
225 


HOSEA. 


l.-lll.    .  . 

i.2       .  . 

i.  2  ff  .  . 

i.  4      .  . 

i.  6,  7  .  . 

1.9      .  . 

i.  10    .  . 

i.  11    .  . 

ii.  3     .  . 
ii.  5,  8,  13 

ii.  7     .  . 

ii.  11   .  . 

ii.  13    .  . 

ii.  15    .  . 
ii.  19,  20 

iii.  4    .  . 

iii.  5     .  . 

iv.  1    .  . 

iv.  1,  2  . 

iv.  1,  6  . 

iv.  3    .  . 

iv.  4    .  . 
iv.  4,  5,  6 

iv.  5    .  . 

iv.  6    .  . 

iv.  8    .  . 

iv.  11  .  . 
iv.  12,  17 

iv.  13  .  . 

iv.  15  .  . 

iv.  16  .  . 

iv.  19  .  . 

V.  1      .  . 

V.  1,  11  . 

V.  6      .  . 

V.  7      .  . 

V.  10   .  . 

V.  11   .  . 

V.  13    .  . 

V.  15    .  . 

vi.  4    .  . 

vi.  5    .  . 

vi.  6    .  . 

vi.  7    .  . 

vi.  11  .  . 

vii.  1  .  . 

vii.  4,  5  . 

vii.  8  .  . 

vii.  11  . 


...  113 
...  323 
.  .  61,  320 
.  324,  348 
.  329,  348 
221,  245,  330 
.     .     .     143 


230,  330 
.  324 
.  271 
.     323 


115 

.  .  .  323,  325 
113,  320,  328  note 
113 


117  note,  334 
.  159,  330 
...  114 
...  322 
.     .     .     323 


.  .  .  324 
116  note,  318 
318  note 
.  .  .  317 
.  115,  317 
...  116 
.  .  .  322 
.     .     .     323 


.     .    114,  163,  329 
158,  166,  294,  329 

114 

334 

.     .   158,  161,  329 

320 

334 


113,  323 
116  note 


323 

....  147,  323 
....  321,  323 
....  319,  320 
111  note,  116,  323,  334 
.  .  .  113,  320,  323 
.     .     .     .       117  note 

322 

322 

323 

323 


HOSKA  (continued).       Page 

vii.  14 334 

viii.  1 115,  317,  320 

viii.  4 159,  323 

viii.  5,  6 293,  325 

viii.  6       294 

viii.  9       323 

viii.  11     .     .     .      116  note,  1,58,  329 
viii.  12     .     .     .      114,  340  and  note 

viii.  13 115,  116  note 

viii.  14 230,  323 

ix.  3    .     .     .     .     116  note,  324,  334 

ix.  3,  4 116 

ix.  4    .     .     .     .      116  and  note,  334 

ix.  5 115 

ix.  9 114 

ix.  10  ....  117  note,  328  note 

ix.  15 158,  166,  329 

ix.  17 323 

X.  1 158,  329 

324 


X.  2,  8 


X.  4  . 
X.  5  . 
X.  8,  15 
X.  9  . 
X.  11  . 
X.  12  . 


.  322 
.  325 
.  158 
.  114 
117  note 
.     323 


X.  12,  13 
xi.  1  . 


xi.  2 


322 
320 
323 


xi.  7 114,  323 

xi.  12 322 

323 


xii.  1  . 
xii.  2  . 
xii.  3,  4 
xii.  6  . 


320 
320 
323 


xii.  6-8 322 

xii.  9   ...  115,  320,  337  note 

xii.  10 319 

xii.  11   .  .  116  note,  158,  166,  329 

xii.  13 57  note,  320 

1,2 113 


Xlll. 

xiii.  2 
xiii.  4 
xiii.  6 
xiii.  16 
xiv.  2 
xiv.  3 
xiv.  3.  8 
xiv.  4 


.  .  325 

,  .  320 

,  .  323 

.  .  323 

.  334 

,  .  323 

.  323 

114,  323 


ii.  1,  15,  3i 
ii.  15  Ii  . 


157 
119 


368 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE    TEXTS. 


JOEL  {continued).         Page 

iii.  4-8 186 

iii.  16,  17,  21 157 

iii.  18       244 

iii.  19       63 

iii.  19,  20 199 

iii.  21        119 


AMOS. 

i.  2      .     .      117  note,  159,  294,  324, 
328,  335 

i.  6-8 185 

ii.  4 115,  317 

ii.  5     .........     230 

ii.  6-8 322 

ii.  7     .     .      117  note  (bis),  322,  323 

ii.  9 117  note 

ii.  10   .     .     ,     .     118,  320,  328  note 

ii.  11 335 

ii.  11,  12 117  note,  319 

ii.  12 335 

iii.  1,  2 320 

iii.  2,  3 151 

iii.  7 319 

iii.  10 322 

iii.  11-15 .324 

iii.  14  .     .    .     .     158,  294,  324,  326 

iv.  1 322 

iv.  4    .    116,  117  note,  158,  166, 294, 
326 

iv.  5 116,  335 

iv.  6,  8-11 323 

iv.  6-11 .•    .     323 

V.  4,  6 323 

V.  4-6 158,  325 

V.  5 161,  294,  329 

V.  7, 24 322 

V.  10,  12,  15 322 

\>11 117  note,  322 

•vT  18 185,  323^ 

V.  21 115 

v.  21  ii' 99,  118 

V.  21-23 325 

V.  22 115 

>y.  25    ....     118  (bis),  328??o<e^ 

>.  26 294 

V.  27 324 

vi.  1 323 

vi.  4-6 322 

vi.  12 322 

vi.  14 117  note 

vii,  9 158,  329 

vii.  12 318 

vii.  15,  16 319 


AMOS  (continued).        Page 

viii.  4-6 322 

viii.  5 115,  117  7iote 

viii.  14  .     .     .      158,  161,  293,  326 

ix.  8         324 

ix.  10       220 

ix.  11 159,  230 

ix.  13 117  note 

ix.  14  ....       117  note  (bis) 

OBADIAH. 

vers.  16,  17,  21 157 

ver.  18 199 

MICAH. 

i.  5 1.57 

iii.  10 Ill  note 

iii.  12 230 

iv.  1  ff 119 

iv.  1,  2,  7 157 

iv.  10 182,  232,  353 

v.  5,  6 213 

vi.  8 99,  110,  118 

vii.  14 1G5 

NAHUM. 

iii.  8-10 201,213 

H^VBAKKUK. 

i.  5-10 233 

ii.  2 58  note 

ii.  3 185 

ii.  12 Ill  n^fe 

iii.  3 279 

iii.  3,  4 280 

ZEPHAXIAH. 

i.  8,  9       127  note 

ii.  4-7 186 

ii.  9,  10 198 

ZECHARIAH. 

i.-viii 237 

ii.  11 221 

vii.  5 132 

viii.  19 132 

ix.-xi 237 

ix.  5-7 186 

xii.-xiv 233 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE   TEXTS. 


;69 


ZECiiAKiAH  {condn'Ufl).     Page 

xiv.  8  .     .     .  ' 244 

xiv.  21 221 

MALACHI. 

i.  3,  4 198 

i.  11 120,  245 

ii.  4-8 128  note 

iii.  3 128  note 

iii.  7 148 

iv.  4 280 

MATTHEW. 

ix.  9 61 

xxiv 212 

LUKE. 

xiv.  26 91  note 

xix.  40 210 

JOHN. 

xiii.  23 61 

xxi.  25 210 

ACTS. 

xxi.  3-6 196 

I.   TIMOTHY. 

iv.  3 290 


riEVELATIOX.  Pagp 

vii.  5  ff 124 

xi.  8 215 

xxii.  Iff 124 


I.   MACCABEES. 

iii.  46 163 

iv.  47 313 

vi.  53 133 

II.    MACCABEES. 

viii.  28,  30 57  note 


JOSEPHU 

Antiq.,  x.  9.  7  .     . 
Antiq.,  x.  11.  1      . 
Antiq.,  xiii.  10.  3  . 
Antiq.,  xiv.  16.  4  . 
Against  Apion,  i.  19 
Against  Apion,  i.  21 
Against  Apion,  i.  22 
Jewish  War,  v.  5.  6 

HERODOT 

ii.  58 

s. 

198,  199,  206 
...     197 
.     .     .     133 
.     .     .     133 
.      187,  205 
...    196 
.     .   ■.     313 
...     313 

[JS. 

ii.  177       200 

ii.  177  (Rawlinson's  Notes)      .    204 
iii.  2.  16 201 

Date  Due 

rfHUBa^ 

m 

PRINTED 

IN  U.  S.  A. 

